This is simple tin hat stuff. Most nuclear supporters are not lobbyists, lets get real. Every energy option has its problems and deaths, and a comparison of each shows nuclear to be one of the best.
Second no-one is trying to suppress the figures, there simply is no means to do so. Its obvious enough that all mining activities cause deaths, no sensible person seeks to pretend otherwise. Of course the amount of coal mining is on another scale to uranium mining.
Death data for each energy industry is no secret, and anyone can quote whichever figures they like. You can get data for power plant deaths, mining deaths, leukaemia deaths, emphysema deaths, whatever you like.
Really it makes no difference to the key points whether that site's hoaxed or not. I dont think it is, but either way the arguments for and against each power option are exactly the same.
Nobody builds designs like Chernobyl these days. In any industry lessons are learnt from disasters, and building a nuclear plant as hairy as the Chernobyl design just isnt something anyone would take seriously today.
This process of disaster, learning and improvement ocurs in all industries.
I don't see how, in terms of devastating effect, the deaths of miners are on a par with the deaths of nuclear power workers, firemen, sacrificial soldiers and swathes of the local population. This combined with the rendering of vast tracts of land uninhabitable by humans for at least hundreds of years. Nothing "exactly the same" there as far as I can see.
I'm propounding no conspiracy here - though we know there were attempted cover-ups. I know that deaths that may have been caused by radioactive leaks were never reported let alone investigated. But I have absolutely no proof that any such deaths were caused in that way - just as you have no proof that such deaths didn't have that cause.
The *official* figures are necessarily restricted to those with a clear causal link - but radioactivity doesn't work in such clearly defined ways.
All irrelevant as another ice age is inevitable; purely a matter of time.
Just like it is inevitable that there will be a major volcanic explosion or two at some time in the near future spewing millions upon millions of tons of volcanic ash into the atmosphere more than cancelling out any effects of global warming; and also spewing millions upon millions of tons of volcanic gases into the atmosphere. You should be able to work out the effect of that.
Just like it is inevitable that sometime in the future the side of one of the Canary Islands will slide into the sea and create a tsunami which will devastate the east coast of the USA
Just like it is inevitable that at some time in the future a large object from space will strike the earth causing widespread devastation and destruction.
Just like it is inevitable that the super-magma lava chamber under USA's Yellowstone Park will explode, devastating everything within 1000kM just like it has done 6 times in the last 600,000 years and since it was
140,000 years ago since the last blast, this event could happen at any time.
Just like it is inevitable that at some time in the future the earth's magnetic poles will revert causing unimaginable changes.
The reality is that in the grand scheme of things, whatever humans do is of no consequence whatsoever.
But if it makes you feel better, please delude yourself otherwise.
On 8 Mar 2006 06:09:55 -0800 someone who may be snipped-for-privacy@care2.com wrote this:-
Is this the start of the personal abuse? if so that is always a good sign.
I spoke of, "the pro-nuclear lobby." That includes people paid to lobby, as well as people not paid to lobby.
Yes, it looks like the start of the personal abuse.
Provided one looks only at nuclear power stations in the UK then the number of deaths is presumably similar to the number of deaths in large coal fired power stations in the UK.
Perhaps you could point to the posting in which I claimed that anyone was?
Definitely the start of the personal abuse. Something generally resorted to by those with no better arguments.
On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 15:02:11 GMT someone who may be "dennis@home" wrote this:-
Windscale doesn't seem to have learnt much over the decades. They don't even know precisely what is in some of the ponds, even after using a submersible (which then became radioactive waste). The vitrification plants are still not working properly. Add in a bit of sabotage and falsification of records and it would seem that incompetence, bad training and shoddy workmanship is still common in the nuclear "industry".
Indeed, a gas cooled reactor is intrinsically safer, though more expensive. The only real downside with gas cooled reactors is that they emit carbon dioxide, though not much.
On 8 Mar 2006 10:24:02 -0600 someone who may be Mr X wrote this:-
That sort of reasoning can be used to "justify" doing anything or nothing. We are too unimportant to bother doing anything. I disagree with that approach.
I'm not the one suggesting they did die from radiation or that it was covered up.
The figures show that nuclear workers have less cancers, etc. than most other sectors. (Its probably due to them not smoking at work but we don't want to include the worst killer in Britain in this argument.)
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.