When you burn the remains of these ancient life forms it releases their ghosts and that’s what kills so many when they breathe haunted air
A cow is more likely to kill you than a shark
Submitted 11 hours ago by Forester@pawb.social to [deleted]
https://pawb.social/pictrs/image/cf9b4912-6a56-439f-8493-5aee1d0d1323.png
Comments
OwOarchist@pawb.social 9 hours ago
Absolute numbers are meaningless. It needs to be weighted against how much electricity was produced with each.
(And why is solar not mentioned? Plenty of solar installers die from falling off of roofs and whatnot.)
Forester@pawb.social 8 hours ago
valgarf@discuss.tchncs.de 4 hours ago
On the site there is also a direct comparison: ourworldindata.org/…/death-rates-from-energy-prod…
Grouping Hydro with other renewables is not very nice for wind and solar, which are pretty safe - with the added benefit of being cheaper than nuclear power.
untorquer@quokk.au 6 hours ago
Yeah there’s a reason I’m leaving the energy sector. The choice to use fossil fuels for grid in the last 50yrs has been and will continue to be a purely political one.
then_three_more@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
I’d be willing to put money on the amount of deaths from fossil fuel power generation related accidents (mining coal isn’t exactly the safest job) is higher than the rest on its own. Even before the millions who’ve had their lives shortened by the pollution.
Diddlydee@feddit.uk 10 hours ago
I cow is more likely to kill you than a shark (on land).
Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 10 hours ago
If you get into a pool with a cow, its not going to be nice to you either.
AcidBurn@retrofed.com 6 hours ago
What if you put a shark and a cow in a pool?
banazir@lemmy.ml 10 hours ago
I see you are not familiar with sea cows.
Forester@pawb.social 8 hours ago
Good thing that the petrochemical industry has not polluted the land air and water then…
Admetus@sopuli.xyz 9 hours ago
Quoting 5k deaths when Chernobyl was a single incident probably contributing to most of them.
marcos@lemmy.world 6 hours ago
Most of the renewables count is one dam that failed in China too.
Forester@pawb.social 42 minutes ago
Forester@pawb.social 8 hours ago
The only reason it killed so many was the poop grade soviet response. Men were cheaper than machines.
Thorry@feddit.org 5 hours ago
Only 30 people actually died as a direct result of the Chernobyl disaster. It’s very hard to know how much indirect deaths however. Or the overall impact on health for people in Europe. Estimations range from 4000 (WHO) up to 16000. No idea what OPs numbers include or don’t include.
Admetus@sopuli.xyz 4 hours ago
That’s the trouble, just under 5000 deaths when you take away freak accidents (like the Japanese worker who was inundated with highly radioactive liquid) so those numbers must fall under a specific estimate.
Tiral@lemmy.world 5 hours ago
Sharks kill more people on a case by case basis.
Forester@pawb.social 32 minutes ago
Ive swam/surfed with sharks a few times, ive only seen a cow a couple times and been bit once by one.
Kolanaki@pawb.social 10 hours ago
I never even considered that nuclear power isn’t renewable until now. 🤣
OwOarchist@pawb.social 9 hours ago
Can’t make more radioactive rocks if we run out.
Well … unless you use your uranium reactor to create plutonium… But, you’re right – even then, it would eventually run out. So fission power isn’t renewable.
Fusion power, though… If you can make a viable fusion reactor ecosystem that can use regular ordinary hydrogen as its input fuel, then that’s at least psuedo-renewable. Yeah, eventually you’ll have converted so much hydrogen into helium that hydrogen might start running low. But I’m guessing you could power 100 earths for 10 billion years before you used even half the hydrogen available.
Forester@pawb.social 9 hours ago
We can actually en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 7 hours ago
Breeder reactors don’t create fuel. They convert not-quite-usable isotopes into usable isotopes.
GargleBlaster@feddit.org 10 hours ago
Sooo you base this on an opinion piece disguised as journal article in a low impact journal by a guy that has, let’s say interesting views on radiation damage and global warming.
Forester@pawb.social 8 hours ago
96 cited references supporting a thesis is a opinion piece?
GargleBlaster@feddit.org 5 hours ago
Sentences like “It is exploited in attempts to strangle development of atomic energy, the cleanest, safest and practically inexhaustible means to meet the worlds energy needs” or retelling of the events from his perspective or constant self citation make it a definitive opionion piece.
And I looked at random papers that cited this paper. Some are not even listed anymore and most others I randomly selected (~20) cited the paper for random facts (“release of around 70 tons of nuclear fuel”, “radioresistant microbes can tolerate a high radiation incidence”, “many of these communities have not, and will not, be repopulated due to the current radiation”) or outright contradicted the paper (“[his] assumptions [about cancer incidence] are in conflict with observations from Russia…”).
The amount of citations a paper has is absolutely useless information without context to whether the citations support/contrast or are incidental
gedaliyah@lemmy.world 9 hours ago
Does that include like building the hoover dam or what?
Forester@pawb.social 9 hours ago
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure Mostly that but a few others.
Carmakazi@piefed.social 4 hours ago
Maintaining wind turbines is very dangerous. You’d think it’s falls but the leading one is electrical injuries (that may then lead to a fall).
Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 10 hours ago
Oh look, yet another person with an opinion on the LNT model for radiation exposure. As a safety professional, let me explain in really basic terms.
Everyone knows the model is pretty shit for long-term exposure to small doses. This isn’t news, and hasn’t been new for the past half century.
Similarly, we all know that chemical exposure levels are, for the most part, entirely bullshit. The exposure lengths are often based on 40 years of 40 hours a week, which is almost never true, and are even then very conservative.
The problem is that you can’t get accurate data. You can’t expose a couple of hundred people to hazardous conditions for decades, just to get better data. Everyone bitching about LNT for radiation or all sorts of chemical and biological exposure limits is overlooking one key detail.
We don’t have a better model. We can’t develop a better model in any remotely ethical way with current or near future technology either.
chuckleslord@lemmy.world 2 hours ago
LNT is wrong
We know it’s wrong
We don’t know how to get to a different model
Let’s do nothing
Like, to clarify, this is your argument, yeah? Wouldn’t “the highest levels we know don’t cause excess deaths” be a better standard? You could claim that that isn’t particularly rigorous, but neither is LNT. And it allows more movement than “We must spend every penny we can on radiation mitigation, regardless of harm reduction”
Forester@pawb.social 8 hours ago
Its the best model we have it may not be 100% accurate but it is better than nothing and assumes any radiation exposure is carcinogenic. However in gen pop (read healthy adults) our natural repair mechanisms are generally apt to repair damage caused by exposure to doses less than 5mSv/y
Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 7 hours ago
Exactly! The model is wrong for low level, long term exposure. We know that, it’s not new or shocking. But there isn’t anything else, and you can make a decent argument there won’t be anything else either, so we’re kinda stuck with it.
OwOarchist@pawb.social 9 hours ago
I know the whole “humans are not mice” thing … but wouldn’t tests on lab animals go a long way toward refining exposure models?
Yes, you can’t just assume that things will affect humans the same way they affect mice. And maybe a mouse model of long-term exposure is hampered by the short lifespans of mice. But surely that data, used in combination with the human data we already have, could help produce a more accurate, reasonable model?
Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 8 hours ago
In part, yes, that’s where many of our chemical and exposure limits come from.
But got it right in one. You can’t expose a mouse to decades of low level radiation, because mice rarely live to be 3. And you can’t just use 10 times the radiation because that’s exactly what you want to research.
What we have is pretty much how we know LNT is wrong, because we don’t really see more health risks in people who live in naturally more radioactive areas. But you can’t really construct a proper model from that kind of data. If you want to use a model for tens of millions of people over decades, even the tiniest change can make it go from “no harm at all” to “tens of thousands of corpses”.
Forester@pawb.social 9 hours ago
www.cleanfutures.org/dogs-of-chernobyl/
cough cough
abbiistabbii@piefed.blahaj.zone 4 hours ago
Genuinely curious as to how and where we got the 140k deaths from renewables? It doesn’t appear on the paper you linked but it cites the structural collapse of a Hydroeletric Dam in china which caused 230k deaths.
I’m curious where you got the renewables figure from, is it from dam collapses (which are structural failures rather than a product of the power source) or is there some sort of issue with wind turbines where they magically sprout legs and march into Cities like Godzilla with PMS?
Forester@pawb.social 54 minutes ago
The chinese claim only 26k deaths some estimates place it at 260k deaths i’m not being exact its a ballpark. No one source tracks all deaths from renewables or fossil fuels or nuclear. 52 dams collapsed not one.
Its mismanagement and failure to properly engineer for the situation on hand. Water is heavy the built weak dams to generate hydro power. They had a cascade of containment failure events. likely ~130k people died directly from this event. The other ~10k is a rough estimate on other deaths from similar incidents en.wikipedia.org/…/List_of_hydroelectric_power_st…
Skullgrid@lemmy.world 28 minutes ago
so… hydroelectric power stations collapsed, thus renewable energies like wind turbines and solar power are bad?
Funkt4st1c@lemmy.world 1 hour ago
You havent been attacked by a solar panel? Theyre awfully vicious in my area /s
Forester@pawb.social 45 minutes ago
I left solar off cause its the safest only deaths are falls and accidental electrocutions unless you count the odd deaths from being hit in the head or crushed.