@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @Dandy Quote: Now this is interesting: official reports refuse to take all the indirect casualties of nuclear power into accout - but they shall be taken into accout for all the other energy forms? I made the (simple) calculation for BrianK with his method

I highly doubt this is BrianK's method...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: and the official numbers (see posts #420 and previous for background):

You mean "the official cherry-picked numbers"...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: adding the indirect consequences (that we will never be able to observe according to the UN report because the figure will be very low, about 30, when compared to the other casualty numbers) of Tchernobyl accident into the balance does not change the conclusion.

What are you expecting from corrupt politicians?
They would never admit that they decided in favour of a technology not because it is harmless, but because the sum of money they were given was high enough.
If they would admit, they would be held resposible for all the money this bought wrong decision decision did cost the public.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: We have no such things here (coal and oil), and because of this, we invested in clean and safe nuclear technologies long ago. Sorry to disappoint you.

Sorry, my memory didn't serve me very well - you had been talking about burning oil and gas - not coal and oil:

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote in posting #373: As previous years, HAH is celebrated here with incandescent and halogen lights all switched on at the party, by the magic of cheap nuclear electricity. I do not forget burning some abiogenic fuels (oil and gas)

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: The rest of your post fails accordingly.

As I just demonstrated that the beginning of this post didn't fail, your "failed accordingly" can only mean that the rest is valid as well.
Thanks for admitting this.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@BrianK

Quote:

Here's an article with the UN numbers The 4000 figure in this article is the "A total of up to 4000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl "

Have you notice the conditional tense 'could'? It's a prediction, not actual data. Anyway let's continue.

Quote:

The 25% figure is "As about quarter of people die from spontaneous cancer not caused by Chernobyl radiation" The 25% figure is the average number of people in the world deaths are caused by cancer. You incorrected applied this to the 4K when that had already been done.

No, it is clearly stated in the full statement (in bold): Quote:

The international experts have estimated that radiation could cause up to about 4000 eventual deaths among the higher-exposed Chernobyl populations, i.e., emergency workers from 1986-1987, evacuees and residents of the most contaminated areas. This number contains both the known radiation-induced cancer and leukaemia deaths [47 workers + 9 children] and a statistical prediction, based on estimates of the radiation doses received by these populations ["estimated total of 3940 deaths from radiation-induced cancer and leukemia among the 200 000 emergency workers from 1986-1987, 116 000 evacuees and 270 000 residents of the most contaminated areas (total about 600 000)", according to the next page from the link you provided]...

Thus this 4K subset has not been applied the 25% at this time, meaning it is a part of the world population selected because of consequences both measured and projected of the accident; indeed it is stated in the very following sentence: Quote:

... As about quarter of people die from spontaneous cancer not caused by Chernobyl radiation, ...

Meaning that they (and I but not you) correctly applied the 25% figure on the 4K value as the penultimate step. Using the 3% estimate gives then the low number of 30. Though they don't give the 30 figure, their conclusion is correct: Quote:

...the radiation-induced [death] increase of only about 3% will be difficult to observe

So are my calculus and conclusion.

Quote:

The 3% figure "the radiation-induced increase of only about 3% will be difficult to observe." Again this number is already in the final calculation resulting in the 4K estimate.

As demonstrated above, it can't.

Quote:

I'd also argue that 'fatalities' is not the only measure of harm. There was about 4K children with thyroid cancer. There are other people with cancers too. Just because mediciine [sic] make them better doesn't mean the nukes didn't cause harm to their lives. And for some with cancer will never be fully restored. It seems you want to promote death as the only harm.

Nobody denies this diversion, but ironically enough you shamelessly f***, twist, misinterpret miscalculate misuse the UN report's numbers to enlarge the possible outcome of casualties, so the one promoting deaths is certainly not me.

The bottom end is that I made precise claims based on empirical data you have contested on no ground. Diverting with wrong calculus and supposed lack of data is no argument. You can't do better.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @Dandy Quote: I'd prefer solar cells (photovoltaic and heat collectors) on my roof Solar technology is too young; for example I have no warranty that panels will be up to the job (100% efficiency) in 10 years.

There also is no warranty that we will be still alive in 10 years from now...

But back to the topic - e.g. combustion engines equally aren't 100% efficient after 10 years of usage.

The same goes for your car's shock absorbers, clutch, brakes, tyres, etc. - just to name a few.

The reason is called "aging" or "abrasion" or - in the case of solar cells - "degradation".

For the detection of solar cell degradation, usually a time period of up to 25 years is examined. The loss of efficiency (degradation) is in the range of 10% during a 10 year period and 13% during a 25 year period.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: I also need power 24h a day not 50% a day.

You possibly remember my proposal in one of the first GW threads here, where I suggested to install a sort of huge solar panel in the orbit and to transfer the generated electricity wirelessly to the ground.
Up there the sun actually IS shining 100% (no clouds or whatever) 24h per day and not just 50% per day...

More seriously:
If you need power 24h per day, you can easily use some of the excess power generated to charge batteries, which in turn give you power during the night time. The system just has to be designed properly.
This will be significantly less expansive than putting a panel in the orbit and above all this is already currently viable.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: The fact is that it's you (the customer of green energy) who is paying for this 5 zeros figures as it was a condition to build the 10 pluming pluckers ...

I doubt you will be able to quantify my personal contribution...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: Imagine - you could grill them with the clean energy from the windmills... Why would I eat a bones-meat-plumes mix when I produce fine beefsteaks myself? ...

I always thought the French are all gourmets and love to eat birds like geese, chicken, quails etc. and love to pay enormous sums for an mostly empty plate and call that "meal" - I always wondered how the French could survive so long in the face of such tiny portions...


So I thought opening a gourmet restaurant nearby your bird choppers (I really love that term b.t.w. ) could be like a money printing unit for you: chopped birds for free, green power for free to operate the electric grill, all on your own property...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Please refrain in the future

Refrain from what - being a nudist or making jokes?

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @Dandy Quote: This means that 50% of them are 100% pregnant. In the real world, it would be a shame to be so unscientific.

Why?
There's no science involved - just some basic mathematical knowledge...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: But I clearly stated the kind of "approximations" climate pseudo-scientists are used to. In the ivory tower of the climate bastion, any statistical trick is useful to push the right 'message'.

Then it should be clear by now that I'm no climate pseudo-scientist...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@BrianK

Quote:

Actually needing power 24hr/day is fairly minimum assuming that most people in the modern world leave their house at some point.

Surely in your fantasy world, but in the real world, during the winter at night, there's no sun to heat one's house.

Quote:

And there is this energy storage technology called batteries. I've spent a week in a cabin that was solar powered and charges batteries at night. Never ran out of power for anything.

I'm not living in a cabin but in a real home most of the time. The point is that no interesting roof surface (ie south-oriented) will ever be large enough to cover average electricity consumption of a home even if reducing comfort to minimum (such action I see no reason to take). Energy storage of batteries is not dense enough and too unreliable (EVs are good example). So no and no.

Quote:

And if your expectation is really 100% efficiency there's a problem there. It's called the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

No need of thermodynamics here. Many solar panels are not reliable (mostly because they come from China, but other problem as well). Power density of renewables is too low to be interesting without subsidies. If some technical problems arise, the potential profit fast disappear and is never recovered. Too much troubles from medieval technologies.

Quote:

Verifies the overridding [sic] idea certainly. Though your mathematical errors and inconsitency [sic] of empirical data makes your details and how much better nukes are to be more than questionable.

We can safely direct your comment to NIL: now.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Dandy

Quote:

Furthermore, from a technical point of view it is irrelevant,

It is not because the table I provided and the conclusion I and 2 independent sources gave, deal with commercial nuclear plants, not military nor experimental nor anything else that is not commercial plants. Please reread the thread to have a better picture. Some information about military nuclear is also given in the annex link at WNA.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @TMTisFree ... I'd also argue that 'fatalities' is not the only measure of harm. There was about 4K children with thyroid cancer. There are other people with cancers too. Just because mediciine make them better doesn't mean the nukes didn't cause harm to their lives. And for some with cancer will never be fully restored. It seems you want to promote death as the only harm. ...

Not to forget the monetary damage...
(the complete monetary costs of the Chernobyl disaster are estimated to be up to 235 Billion US$ until 2015, where the costs for the planned new sarcophagus are not included. They could very well amount up to 1,6 Billion Euros, which would be twice as much as originally estimated.)

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy

Quote:

I highly doubt this is BrianK's method...

He suggested adding the modelled/predicted/projected casualties to the actual number of deaths might change the outcome. The calculation says no. He also suggest that 'supposed' missing data are, err, lacking. With this logic, the official UN numbers from the IPCC are then untrustworthy. Oh wait...

Quote:

You mean "the official cherry-picked numbers"...

With your logic, the official UN numbers from the IPCC are then also cherry-picked. Oh wait, they are...

I hope this US-based peer-reviewed paper will help you replace the real level of risks associated with nuclear on a broader risk's scale.

Quote:

As I just demonstrated that the beginning of this post didn't fail, your "failed accordingly" can only mean that the rest is valid as well.

As you did not (know that a demonstration required evidences you did not provide), I can only call to a bis repetita.

Edit: missed a response

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 31-Mar-2011 at 01:03 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Dandy

Quote:

You possibly remember my proposal in one of the first GW threads here, where I suggested to install a sort of huge solar panel in the orbit and to transfer the generated electricity wirelessly to the ground.

You read too much anticipation books. I submit to be entertained by:
1/ what current technologies have to offer NOW and;
2/ what is possible in the near future (my life-span) based on 1/.

Quote:

More seriously:

Ah, you were not serious. A ritual.

Quote:

I doubt you will be able to quantify my personal contribution...

The simple fact you actually do (or will do) is enough really

Quote:

I always thought the French are all gourmets and love to eat birds like geese, chicken, quails etc. and love to pay enormous sums for an mostly empty plate and call that "meal" - I always wondered how the French could survive so long in the face of such tiny portions...

This is the problem of foreign tourists visiting a country only city after city. The countryside offers 'thick table's pleasures' inversely proportional to the number of visiting people (roughly). That why we like not seeing you there (and explains why you wondered btw). Thanks for asking.

Quote:

chopped birds for free, green power for free to operate the electric grill, all on your own property...

Demonstrate you have no idea how to run a business. Or is it supposed to be another (non-)joke?

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Dandy

Quote:

There's no science involved - just some basic mathematical knowledge...

My bad, I forgot that some here believe Maths is no Science.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

What we're asking is what is the predicted result from Chernobyl.
Quote:

Thus this 4K subset has not been applied the 25% at this time, meaning it is a part of the world population selected because of consequences both measured and projected of the accident; indeed it is stated in the very following sentence: Quote: ... As about quarter of people die from spontaneous cancer not caused by Chernobyl radiation

Got that 1/4 of people die by cancer not caused by Chernobyl. Look back at the article and the population estimate is 586K. 25% of this is 146,500 should be expected to die from cancer. The 3% increase due to Chernobyl would be about 4,400 people. Now they said 'about 3' so using 3 is likely a bit high.This is an article discussing the estimated number of deaths from Chernobyl. They use phrases such as 'about 3%'. It's not meant and is not a word problem.

The article talks about Chernobyl it includes deaths from Chernobyl as 4K. "estimated total of 3940 deaths from radiation-induced cancer and leukemia among the 200 000 emergency workers from 1986-1987, 116 000 evacuees and 270 000 residents " They talk about 4K deaths as they include the 50 workers that have died and the 9 children who died bringing this to 3999. But afterall this is an estimation so rounding to 4K makes things a bit easier to understand as there are error buffers to this calculation. Scientists might say the expected death figure is 4000 within a certain percentage accuracy. This would reflect the precision of the answer.

You contend the real answer is 30. The first sentence indicates you are incorrect -- 'A total of up to 4000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (NPP' -- There's 6 times that the estimated 4K figure is used in association with Chernobyl. At no time do they talk your 30 number.

EDIT: During a recent medical Podcast I was listening to; the Medical Dr. indicated that in the US 45% of people will get cancer sometime. About half of this number will die from the cancer (~23%). Your numbers contend that 4K out of 600K will die from cancer. That low of a number is orders of magnitude out of alignment with reality. END EDIT

Quote:

Though they don't give the 30 figure, their conclusion is correct:

They don't give the 30 figure because this isn't the word problem you assumed it to be. The number given by the UN is 4K. And while important it'll be difficult to suss this out because 4K vs 145K is a fairly small amount and close enough the the statistical error boundaries.

Quote:

The bottom end is that I made precise claims based on empirical data you have contested on no ground

The not so subtle insults indicate to me that you're emotionally bound to this. I ask you to refrain as they add no value to your arguement.

I recommend stepping back reading the whole article and understanding that WHO doesn't provide word problems to readers. This article provides the completed calculation so it's easy for people to understand. Repeatedly they stated the deaths due to radiation would be about 4K. You might have done correct calcuations. However, you misapplied the calcuations as you clearly have not understood the article.

Last edited by BrianK on 31-Mar-2011 at 09:18 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 31-Mar-2011 at 09:17 PM.

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Surely in your fantasy world, but in the real world, during the winter at night, there's no sun to heat one's house

In the real work ( at least in the USA) a significant amount of people are gone from their homes during the daytime so certainly their power usage will at a minimum. During this time it's when holding of power takes place.

Quote:

I'm not living in a cabin but in a real home most of the time.

The cabin I was in had the ammenities of a home - TVs in the main room and bedrooms, DVD player, 1 computer, fridge, stove and microwave, hot water. This time we didn't rough it.

Quote:

The point is that no interesting roof surface (ie south-oriented) will ever be large enough to cover average electricity consumption of a home even if reducing comfort to minimum (such action I see no reason to take). Energy storage of batteries is not dense enough and too unreliable (EVs are good example). So no and no.

The point more so is that if you really want the liberty of being off the grid the technical aspects are taken care of today. You can do it. Now I'd agree it'll be expensive to do. However, if you're waiting 10 years for solar to get better there's also no guarantee that individualed nuclear reactors will be available either.

Quote:

Power density of renewables is too low to be interesting without subsidies

If subsidies is a problem then nuclear is out too. In the USA nuclear can only be done with the US Government buying the insurance for businesses. In France your government also carries many costs for the nuclear industry.

Quote:

Too much troubles from medieval technologies

What a joke! You know well that in the medieval days they didn't have collection cells, power converters, or the battery ability to store power. But along this line of humor you prefer even older power as dinosaur days fossils provide your oil and coal.

@Dandy

Quote:

Quote: @BrianK I'd also argue that 'fatalities' is not the only measure of harm. There was about 4K children with thyroid cancer. There are other people with cancers too. Just because mediciine make them better doesn't mean the nukes didn't cause harm to their lives. And for some with cancer will never be fully restored. It seems you want to promote death as the only harm. Not to forget the monetary damage... (the complete monetary costs of the Chernobyl disaster are estimated to be up to 235 Billion US$ until 2015, where the costs for the planned new sarcophagus are not included. They could very well amount up to 1,6 Billion Euros, which would be twice as much as originally estimated.)

That's some interesting data.

The WHO article indicates other problems not mentioned. Of this 116K people were immediately relocated and the total is around 350K. This was clearly a negative impact to liberty of not only those 350K but likely to family members that supported them and certainly the other cities and villages that absorbed the displaced people. Much harm went around and appears still is.

Thank you an important point indeed.

@BrianK

After rereading, it seems I misattributed the 'them' word in the § I quoted to the 4K number instead to the 600K, as you did, because the first calculus I did showed a departure of more that 10% between the precise 3940 predicted deaths they state, and what the calculus gave using the 3% value (~4400). It is more than "a bit high": it is sloppy reporting which induced me in error. Anyway as it is stated in the report "A total of up to 4000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant", meaning the ~3% value they gave is the value used to find for the ~4K prediction even if the text is not very clear (to me). I misunderstood the § and you were thus correct: I apologize for the noise.

Quote:

Your numbers contend that 4K out of 600K will die from cancer. That low of a number is orders of magnitude out of alignment with reality.

This is not my numbers but the numbers from the UN report. The 23% value you give is relatively close to the 25% from the report.

Quote:

The not so subtle insults indicate to me that you're emotionally bound to this. I ask you to refrain as they add no value to your arguement.

It was absolutely not intended as an insult, but as a concluding summary of our exchange. I really have no idea how you can take it as some "not so subtle insults ", the wording is fairly common unless I miss(ed) something (always possible with English).

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK

Quote:

In the real work ( at least in the USA) a significant amount of people are gone from their homes during the daytime so certainly their power usage will at a minimum. During this time it's when holding of power takes place.

Same here about people. The problem being that the output power of solar panel (limited by south-oriented roof area) is 1 order of magnitude lower than what is required to keep temperature in the comfort zone. In addition many house here are heated by the floor meaning there is a lag between the moment you start heating and the moment you sense it: cutting or even lowering heat in the day is very bad practice and investments too expansive in regards to the differential cost. Solar might be interesting as a backup system, but it is really too expansive at the moment (and subsidies are now plunging to the zero figure).

Quote:

However, if you're waiting 10 years for solar to get better there's also no guarantee that individualed nuclear reactors will be available either.

I see it as a long term goal so waiting for the right technology is a sensible 'solution' for now.

Quote:

If subsidies is a problem then nuclear is out too. In the USA nuclear can only be done with the US Government buying the insurance for businesses. In France your government also carries many costs for the nuclear industry.

The whole energy sector is so subsidized that I read recently the claim from an energy expert (have to find the link again) that no one knows the real price of energy. It is clear that nuclear (as we know it) will be now pushed forwards by demanding nations like India or China together with their enormous coal and gas resources. As I see it, the western world has took the way to switch from collective distribution to individual production. The trend has all the features of an emergent market. There sure are business opportunities here.

Quote:

But along this line of humor you prefer even older power as dinosaur days fossils provide your oil and coal.

I made it clear why I prefer nuclear and why we have switched to nuclear in the past here (no oil and no more coal). Second, it is far from certain that your 'fossils oil' has any biologic origin. We have discussed that matter in the past. Either way the next big market in the energy sector is unconventional gases as proven reserves are just enormous and price cheap.

Edit: typos

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 01-Apr-2011 at 04:12 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @BrianK ... I'm not living in a cabin but in a real home most of the time. The point is that no interesting roof surface (ie south-oriented) will ever be large enough to cover average electricity consumption of a home

Then use walls, windows, etc. as well - and/or panels that are tracking the sun...

Latest solar cells have efficiency factors ranging from 23% up to 30%, which is about the same as the average combustion engine.

Glue the solar cells upon a solar heat collector and their efficiency factor will increase even more, PLUS you have hot water for free (that can also be stored to heat your house during the winter time).

From the ibc-solar page
"The lower the temperature, the higher the voltage released in the solar cells and the higher the electricity generation. It may seem counterintuitive, but solar modules function better in colder weather than in blazing heat. A good ventilation of solar modules lowers their core temperature and increases their performance."


Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Energy storage of batteries is not dense enough and too unreliable (EVs are good example). So no and no. ...

Hmmm - too sad that I cannot find the reference - a few days ago they had it on the news here that someone (K.I.T.? http://www.iwr.de/news.php?id=17979) developed a new kind of battery that - in the current state of development - already has a storage density that is twice the storage density of lithium ion batteries. The charging time would be similar to what filling your cars tank at a gas station would take.
But it clearly demonstrates that the energy storage density is being worked on and is continuously improving, as development advances.

Hadn't it been you, who demanded more confidence in technical progress regarding energy generation some AGW threads ago? Where is YOUR confidence NOW?

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @Dandy Quote: Furthermore, from a technical point of view it is irrelevant, It is not because the table I provided and the conclusion I and 2 independent sources gave, deal with commercial nuclear plants, not military nor experimental nor anything else that is not commercial plants. Please reread the thread to have a better picture. Some information about military nuclear is also given in the annex link at WNA.

Sorry - but this POV isn't traceable.
Once a damage is done that threatens peoples lives and harms the environment (where life depends on), it does not matter to the affected people, if the damaging facility had a military, commercial or public function.

So in my book it IS and remains irrelevant...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy

It seems our good frenchman is using electricity to heat his walls rather than a heat exchanger to heat his floors. When you're stuck in such an archaic view of how to efficiently heat a home then of course solar isn't going to be sufficient right now.

For me: 13000 kWh yearly + firewood (can't get a whole lot more environmentally friendly than firewood when you own a farm for heat. 160 square meters. Significantly further north than either France or Germany.

Roughly 3000kWh would go to heating water. Can be done quite efficiently from cooling solar cells, as you describe. we also use a little bit (let's be fair and say 3000kWh) of electricity for heating, which could obviously be run through the water system. Cutting about half the electricity consumed. No PV cells installed to get this far. So we're talking about PV cells to get 7000kWh per year. At an average of 2.4 kWh insolation per square meter per day delivered to the cells and an efficiency of about 20% that's 40 square meters.

Obviously no roof in France is that big.

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @Dandy ... With this logic, the official UN numbers from the IPCC are then untrustworthy. Oh wait ... With your logic, the official UN numbers from the IPCC are then also cherry-picked. Oh wait, they are

Indeed they are. They are, as long as they take the indirect fatal casualties into account for all other energy forms except nuclear - at least in my book...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: ... I hope this US-based peer-reviewed paper will help you replace the real level of risks associated with nuclear on a broader risk's scale.

I bet this "US-based peer-reviewed paper" will help the 170.000 people that had to be evacuated from the 20 km radius around Fukushima Daiichi 1 to accept their fate by putting it "on a broader risk scale" - tell them - I'm sure they will appreciate that...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: As you did not (know that a demonstration required evidences

demonstration

evidence

Is this what you meant?

Not every demonstration requires an evidence...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: you did not provide), I can only call to a bis repetita.

Der Usus von Latinismen ist auf ein Minimum zu reduzieren (the use of latinisms has to be reduced to a minimum)...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

My take on "global warming":

IMO at this point there is no significant direct relationship between "global warming" and CO2 output. But there indeed are:

1) Extreme global weather changes, including severe droughts and severe rainfall in various regions of the world.
2) Mass global animal deaths, especially amongst various fish species, sealife in general, various insect species and birds.
3) A rapid spiking increase of seismic activity wordwide such as volcanic activity, plate movements and earthquakes.

Of course the world does need to limit CO2 output in big cities as smog is very harmful for the people living there, but overall CO2 is consumed by plant-life.

IMO people should plant more green plants worldwide (for example also partly irrigate deserts) and finally en masse resort to green energy (such as produced by solar panels, windmills and hydro-electricity). But IMO non such measure will really stop or reverse the above mentioned problems.

Also I am not per se against nuclear power projects, but people have to built reactors designed with worst case scenarios in mind (for example building them underground in desert areas but with access to water (or for example Antarctica / Siberia), build, monitored and taken care of by expert global institutes instead of cost cutting capitalistic power companies). In any case building nuclear plants near fault lines, near volcanos or near urban areas I consider to be human lunacy.

I also think children should be much better educated with regard to survival tactics, farming, first aid, emergency procedures and recycling. People have become far too dependent on worldwide and local aid services, luxuries and capitalism. The world simply cannot sustain an 'American way of life' for 6 billion people around the globe.

As for the true reasons for the above mentioned problems I have a theory that I am not yet ready to disclose, but IMO there is a worldwide cover-up taking place and blaming CO2 output for various of the changes is just an easy excuse to blindfold the public.

Last edited by MikeB on 01-Apr-2011 at 01:25 PM.