Sheffield Forum

Am I still allowed to question climate change?

Home > General > General Discussions

Reply To Topic
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
11-01-2017, 18:13   #3861
El Cid
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2013
Location: Wakefield
Total Posts: 6,380
Status: Online
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin-H View Post
I was telling somebody the other day that nuclear is even safer than wind power when it comes to number of people killed, so it's good to have that confirmed (as they didn't believe me). I knew I read it somewhere but didn't have the facts and figures to hand.
Do you believe what you read online?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obelix View Post
Nuclear from power generation - deaths so far known are 31 Chernobyl. Plus two Japanese technicians making fuel ingots. Perhaps a few in uranium mining too.
The death toll from cancer following the 1986 meltdown at Chernobyl will reach around 9000.
Uranium mining has more health risks than coal mining, but coal mining is done on a larger scale.

https://www.newscientist.com/article...nuclear-power/

When, in 1975, about 30 dams in central China failed in short succession due to severe flooding, an estimated 230,000 people died. Include the toll from this single event, and fatalities from hydropower far exceed the number of deaths from all other energy sources.

Who many people die in each category, depends on which news media you read
  Reply With Quote
11-01-2017, 18:20   #3862
Robin-H
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2015
Total Posts: 1,891
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Cid View Post
Do you believe what you read online?
Why would you think I believe everything I read online? What was the point of that comment?

Like most rational people, I judge whether or not to believe something based on how reputable the source is.
  Reply With Quote
11-01-2017, 18:23   #3863
El Cid
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2013
Location: Wakefield
Total Posts: 6,380
Status: Online
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin-H View Post
Why would you think I believe everything I read online? What was the point of that comment?

Like most rational people, I judge whether or not to believe something based on how reputable the source is.
Wikipedia states

"The Banqiao Reservoir Dam (simplified Chinese: 板桥水库大坝; traditional Chinese: 板橋水庫大壩; pinyin: Bǎnqio Shuǐk Db) is a dam on the River Ru in Zhumadian City, Henan province, China. Its failure in 1975 caused more casualties than any other dam failure in history at an estimated 171,000 deaths and 11 million displaced."

Which one is true, or neither?
  Reply With Quote
11-01-2017, 18:30   #3864
Robin-H
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2015
Total Posts: 1,891
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Cid View Post
Wikipedia states

"The Banqiao Reservoir Dam (simplified Chinese: 板桥水库大坝; traditional Chinese: 板橋水庫大壩; pinyin: Bǎnqio Shuǐk Db) is a dam on the River Ru in Zhumadian City, Henan province, China. Its failure in 1975 caused more casualties than any other dam failure in history at an estimated 171,000 deaths and 11 million displaced."

Which one is true, or neither?
Are you meant to be addressing these comments to me?

I said I read that nuclear causes less deaths (per TWh of power) than any other energy source. Somebody else provided figures which backed up what I read so I thanked them for that.

I'm not sure what dam failures in China have got to do with that?
  Reply With Quote
11-01-2017, 19:44   #3865
El Cid
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2013
Location: Wakefield
Total Posts: 6,380
Status: Online
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin-H View Post
I said I read that nuclear causes less deaths (per TWh of power) than any other energy source. Somebody else provided figures which backed up what I read so I thanked them for that.
I can believe that nuclear power generation causes fewer deaths, but not by as great a margin as those figures suggest.
  Reply With Quote
11-01-2017, 19:48   #3866
Robin-H
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2015
Total Posts: 1,891
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Cid View Post
I can believe that nuclear power generation causes fewer deaths, but not by as great a margin as those figures suggest.
What was the post about the failure of Chinese dams about?
  Reply With Quote
11-01-2017, 19:57   #3867
El Cid
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2013
Location: Wakefield
Total Posts: 6,380
Status: Online
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin-H View Post
What was the post about the failure of Chinese dams about?
I was just pointing out that with the different numbers from the New Scientist, you do not know which source to trust.
  Reply With Quote
11-01-2017, 20:08   #3868
Robin-H
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2015
Total Posts: 1,891
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Cid View Post
I was just pointing out that with the different numbers from the New Scientist, you do not know which source to trust.
I see. Yes there are often varying figures from different sources, particularly for events like this with large death tolls.

The full wikipedia article does however also quote the 230,000 figure which was the one that the New Scientist used. The new scientist article was also quoting the figure for all 30 dams which failed in that flooding, whereas quote you took from wikipedia was just for the Banqiao Reservoir Dam, which might explain the discrepancy.

Further down the wikipedia article however it does state this..

Although a large number of people were reported as lost at first, many of them later returned home. A 2005 book compiled by the Archives Bureau of Suiping county reports that more than 230,000 were carried away by water, in which 18,869 died. It has been reported that 90,000 - 230,000 people were killed as a result of the dam breaking.

It also later states..

According to the Hydrology Department of Henan Province, approximately 26,000 people died at the province from flooding and another 145,000 died during subsequent epidemics and famine.

Perhaps the New Scientist article was using the most sensationalist figure.
  Reply With Quote
12-01-2017, 08:12   #3869
unbeliever
Registered User
unbeliever's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2013
Location: Sitting in front of my laptop
Total Posts: 8,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin-H View Post
I see. Yes there are often varying figures from different sources, particularly for events like this with large death tolls.

The full wikipedia article does however also quote the 230,000 figure which was the one that the New Scientist used. The new scientist article was also quoting the figure for all 30 dams which failed in that flooding, whereas quote you took from wikipedia was just for the Banqiao Reservoir Dam, which might explain the discrepancy.

Further down the wikipedia article however it does state this..

Although a large number of people were reported as lost at first, many of them later returned home. A 2005 book compiled by the Archives Bureau of Suiping county reports that more than 230,000 were carried away by water, in which 18,869 died. It has been reported that 90,000 - 230,000 people were killed as a result of the dam breaking.

It also later states..

According to the Hydrology Department of Henan Province, approximately 26,000 people died at the province from flooding and another 145,000 died during subsequent epidemics and famine.

Perhaps the New Scientist article was using the most sensationalist figure.
However you calculate it the hydro figure dwarfs the nuclear one.
  Reply With Quote
12-01-2017, 08:57   #3870
Cyclone
Registered User
Cyclone's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Location: Wadlsey
Total Posts: 66,859
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Cid View Post
I can believe that nuclear power generation causes fewer deaths, but not by as great a margin as those figures suggest.
How does that work?
Are the numbers wrong? Can you discredit them somehow? Or are you just going to dismiss them because your gut says that they should be different?
_______
Ask yourself, what would Chuck Norris do?
Youtube videos, snowboarding, climbing, bad drivers.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmn...qpXEZMGnJHf3Wg
  Reply With Quote
12-01-2017, 10:26   #3871
Obelix
Registered User
Obelix's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2010
Total Posts: 11,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Cid View Post
Wikipedia states

"The Banqiao Reservoir Dam (simplified Chinese: 板桥水库大坝; traditional Chinese: 板橋水庫大壩; pinyin: Bǎnqio Shuǐk Db) is a dam on the River Ru in Zhumadian City, Henan province, China. Its failure in 1975 caused more casualties than any other dam failure in history at an estimated 171,000 deaths and 11 million displaced."

Which one is true, or neither?
It depends on your source. The Chinese have a vested interest in keeping the number small out of saving face for a start. Other countries would prefer the reverse.

The best numbers I've seen are about 230,000 killed in the flooding and a total of 2 million extra deaths caused by the famine due to loss of crops and farmland. How good a number that 2 million is and how much is a result of the dam bursting and how much would have happened anyway due to the weather is very much open to debate. things like this invariably are tricky.

Greenpeace were once kicking around a figure of 630,000 deaths from Chernobyl. They've been caught lying many times before, and people rightly dismiss almost everything they say. Your figures above are 9000 which seems high from data seen ten years ago, but the source is not known for making foolish claims and I'd happily accept those figures. Well I wouldn't be happy about the deaths, but I'd be happy its a reasonably accurate number.
  Reply With Quote
12-01-2017, 11:15   #3872
El Cid
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2013
Location: Wakefield
Total Posts: 6,380
Status: Online
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclone View Post
How does that work?
Are the numbers wrong? Can you discredit them somehow? Or are you just going to dismiss them because your gut says that they should be different?
I cannot disagree with the outcome, like some do, without giving a really good explanation and backed up by facts.
The longest-lived plutonium-244, with a half-life of 80.8 million years; am I meant calculate the costs of its disposal
  Reply With Quote
12-01-2017, 11:16   #3873
unbeliever
Registered User
unbeliever's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2013
Location: Sitting in front of my laptop
Total Posts: 8,855
Yes.
The 'which power source is least dangerous' contest was won some posts back by nuclear.
We're now into the fine detail of exactly how many thousands of times more likely is it to get killed by renewables than by nuclear.
Does anybody care? Is it not enough that renewables are over a thousand times more dangerous; on top of being more expensive, unreliable and with a far higher effective CO2 output?
On this record and reality how did we end up with current government energy strategy?
  Reply With Quote
12-01-2017, 11:21   #3874
Obelix
Registered User
Obelix's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2010
Total Posts: 11,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Cid View Post
I cannot disagree with the outcome, like some do, without giving a really good explanation and backed up by facts.
The longest-lived plutonium-244, with a half-life of 80.8 million years; am I meant calculate the costs of its disposal
Something that long lived is not especially radioactive so disposal of it isn't a problem at all...
  Reply With Quote
12-01-2017, 11:23   #3875
unbeliever
Registered User
unbeliever's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2013
Location: Sitting in front of my laptop
Total Posts: 8,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Cid View Post
I cannot disagree with the outcome, like some do, without giving a really good explanation and backed up by facts.
The longest-lived plutonium-244, with a half-life of 80.8 million years; am I meant calculate the costs of its disposal
Those numbers were about fatalities. You're now commenting on costs. I have no problem discussing costs, but I'm not pretending that they're somehow the same thing because they both contain numbers.



U238 has a half life of (if memory serves) 4 billion years. This is mostly what is in the fuel, although it's not usually the active part of the fuel (except in Pu breeders).
80 million is a lot less than 4 billion.

Longer half-lives are associates with lower rates of radiation emission. For rather obvious reasons if you think about it.
What you want to watch out for is stuff with intermediate half lives: hundreds or thousands of years. These are radioactive enough to be highly dangerous and yet long-lived enough that you can't just wait for them to become safe.

Nuclear waste is amongst the nastiest stuff on Earth. It's likely that it will end up being burned as fuel in a later generation of reactors, failing that it can be buried underground. In the meantime is has such a small volume compared to most of humanities waste that you can just park it somewhere and put up a big keep-away sign.
  Reply With Quote
12-01-2017, 11:24   #3876
Obelix
Registered User
Obelix's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2010
Total Posts: 11,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by unbeliever View Post
how did we end up with current government energy strategy?
Greenpeace and associated uneducated envirowhiners.....
  Reply With Quote
12-01-2017, 11:25   #3877
unbeliever
Registered User
unbeliever's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2013
Location: Sitting in front of my laptop
Total Posts: 8,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obelix View Post
Greenpeace and associated uneducated envirowhiners.....
Yes. Which brings me around to my earlier point.
These people don't want the solution, they want the issue. A solution would take away their power and influence. So they exaggerate the problem and reject the solution.
  Reply With Quote
12-01-2017, 11:26   #3878
El Cid
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2013
Location: Wakefield
Total Posts: 6,380
Status: Online
Quote:
Originally Posted by unbeliever View Post
Yes.
The 'which power source is least dangerous' contest was won some posts back by nuclear.
We're now into the fine detail of exactly how many thousands of times more likely is it to get killed by renewables than by nuclear.
Does anybody care? Is it not enough that renewables are over a thousand times more dangerous; on top of being more expensive, unreliable and with a far higher effective CO2 output?
On this record and reality how did we end up with current government energy strategy?
I was listening to the BBC radio whilst driving, about a new tidal barrage, it said it would not be as expensive as nuclear.
The tone was the nuclear was expensive, it does depend on what is included.
  Reply With Quote
12-01-2017, 11:28   #3879
unbeliever
Registered User
unbeliever's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2013
Location: Sitting in front of my laptop
Total Posts: 8,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Cid View Post
I was listening to the BBC radio whilst driving, about a new tidal barrage, it said it would not be as expensive as nuclear.
The tone was the nuclear was expensive, it does depend on what is included.
Yes. They lied.
I sure it's a deniable lie. A combination of cherry-picking, false accounting and such. But it's a lie. And a massive lie at that.
  Reply With Quote
12-01-2017, 11:29   #3880
Obelix
Registered User
Obelix's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2010
Total Posts: 11,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by unbeliever View Post
Nuclear waste is amongst the nastiest stuff on Earth. It's likely that it will end up being burned as fuel in a later generation of reactors, failing that it can be buried underground. In the meantime is has such a small volume compared to most of humanities waste that you can just park it somewhere and put up a big keep-away sign.
The USA has I think about 50,000 tonnes of high level waste, which is the total amount ever created by them.

Assuming that was all in flasks, you could comfortably store it in a football stadium.

Mind you people say its waste. I see that as 50,000 tonnes of fuel for a molten salt reactor that will just produce lots of lead at the very end of the cycle.....
  Reply With Quote
Reply To Topic

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:30.
POSTS ON THIS FORUM ARE NOT ACTIVELY MONITORED
Click "Report Post" under any post which may breach our terms of use.
©2002-2014 Sheffield Forum | Powered by vBulletin ©2017