Comments on: “Stop the Nuclear Bailout” http://enochthered.wordpress.com/2007/10/15/stop-the-nuclear-bailout/ An independent scientist's observations on society, technology, energy, science and the environment. "Modern science has been a voyage into the unknown, with a lesson in humility waiting at every stop. Many passengers would rather have stayed home." - Carl Sagan Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:19:13 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: bryfry http://enochthered.wordpress.com/2007/10/15/stop-the-nuclear-bailout/#comment-80 bryfry Mon, 15 Oct 2007 18:36:27 +0000 http://enochthered.wordpress.com/2007/10/15/stop-the-nuclear-bailout/#comment-80 I don't know whether you caught it, but I have taken on the <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2007/9/17/141241/664/169#c169" rel="nofollow">comparison of deaths due to wind and nuclear</a> using the reference that you cite, in particular the database of deaths from the wind industry. My analysis is an extrapolation (and thus mostly worthless) of the consequences, in human lives, of the wind industry and the nuclear industry that result from producing the same amount of energy -- and thus is an "apple-to-apple" comparison, unlike what you would get from greens or musicians -- using the very limited amount of data that is available, including Chernobyl. I have scrutinized Gipe's database and thrown out what I considered to be untrustworthy, limiting myself to only the data (i.e., deaths) in the US wind industry after 1989 and before 2006. The result? The two industries are comparable in carnage, with wind resulting in a slightly higher body count. Keep in mind, however, that <i>this includes Chernobyl,</i> which is really unfair to the nuclear industries outside of the old Soviet Union. Sure, my numbers for the wind industry are highly (even ridiculously) speculative, but they are no more speculative or ridiculous than the way that the Linear No-Threshold hypothesis has been applied and abused, often in ways that totally defy common sense. I don’t know whether you caught it, but I have taken on the comparison of deaths due to wind and nuclear using the reference that you cite, in particular the database of deaths from the wind industry.

My analysis is an extrapolation (and thus mostly worthless) of the consequences, in human lives, of the wind industry and the nuclear industry that result from producing the same amount of energy — and thus is an “apple-to-apple” comparison, unlike what you would get from greens or musicians — using the very limited amount of data that is available, including Chernobyl.

I have scrutinized Gipe’s database and thrown out what I considered to be untrustworthy, limiting myself to only the data (i.e., deaths) in the US wind industry after 1989 and before 2006. The result? The two industries are comparable in carnage, with wind resulting in a slightly higher body count. Keep in mind, however, that this includes Chernobyl, which is really unfair to the nuclear industries outside of the old Soviet Union.

Sure, my numbers for the wind industry are highly (even ridiculously) speculative, but they are no more speculative or ridiculous than the way that the Linear No-Threshold hypothesis has been applied and abused, often in ways that totally defy common sense.

]]>