Less consume electricity

[Adrien (ex-nico239)]

In the "impossible to prove" genre, I can tell you a personal story.

At the time of Chernobyl I was at Digne les Bains 04 and it seems that the cloud has hit the corner.

Well 3 of my friends of class of the time (they were about 18 years) have died since a long time around 35 years following a cancer

It has no value I agree, it's probably random but it's the reality.

We will never know if this is due to this famous radioactivity or not ... but unfortunately this story is true and I still remember their names.

From what I read quickly it is not easy to relate the cloud to the increase in cancer rates.

[Leo Maximus]

... And if the tsunami has made 20 000 dead in Fukushima, the radioactivity has not made any victims so far ...

It's wrong.

A first case of cancer was found in 2016 on a man working on Fukushima Daiichi's 1 reactor. He died in 2018: https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20 ... na/004000c (in English). He was in his fifties and was not a smoker.

The link with the disaster was recognized by the Ministry of Health and the family was compensated. There are other cases, very numerous.

Opening in 2017 of the trial of 3 former leaders of the Fukushima plant. They are on trial for "negligence leading to disaster":

http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/2017/0 ... -tepco.php

http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/20 ... ushima.php

5 years of imprisonment required against these 3 leaders of TEPCO:
https://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/ ... _3244.html

[Flytox]

No need to recite the sources, you know them since you have just given them. It is the joint study of WHO, UNScear and IAEA which indicates 49 died in Chernobyl and potentially 4000 dead futures; let us add that these potential dead 4000 have not been confirmed by epidemiological monitoring 30 years after the disaster (better still, the studies on the liquidators show that they are rather better than the control populations of Ukraine, and they have rather fewer cancers) ... It is this scientific consensus that refers to the health consequences of Chernobyl, and not the fanciful and unconfirmed opinions of Pierre, Paul or Flytox who, on the one hand, have no competence in the matter, on the other hand have not conducted any study on the subject.

Here ? How weird! You just went from "no casualties" to 49 official deaths based on the same document ...... and moreover this time it speaks of Chernobyl in Ukraine .... Where there were dead ....

Fortunately, it is "the scientific consensus which refers to the health consequences of Chernobyl" which declares it, otherwise one would have thought that certain pro nuclear were ready to manipulate the presentation of "official" documents to make believe that there is no had had "no casualties" at all, OECD or not (Ukraine is not one of them). The problem with this kind of nuclear pro is that they allow themselves to treat the words of others as "fanciful", "not argued", to have "no competence in the matter" and to have "conducted no study on the subject" while at the height of their self-proclaimed competence they were not even able to read the document they quote themselves.

The question, why do these nuclear pro need to manipulate information to make them say anything else, would they have things to hide?

There was no need to go around the bush any more, the USSR was not part of the OECD, neither was Ukraine ... This is hardly important since, even when integrating the Chernobyl victims , nuclear energy remains the least dangerous energy industry of all, by far.

Fortunately you are competent on the subject .... the wind, photovoltaic etc ... do more deaths than nuclear ...

After, you can have all the fantasies that you want on the frightful terrorists, etc ..., it remains only fantasies, without any concrete validity,

I just hope you're right ......

and without any importance in the face of the hundreds of thousands of deaths, very real, caused by coal-fired power stations during the same period; and that do not seem to move you much, anyway.

Small trial of intention to the passage of elsewhere ... Hundreds of thousands of deaths of too much we agree, to try to decrease by drastically reducing our consumption of carbonaceous energy et Nuclear.

It's really boring these repetitions of fakes about "nuclear dangers" based on nothing but infantile fears, and no serious and rational approach, as if repeating could be enough to create scientific truth.

It's really tiresome these rehearsals of fakes on the benefits of nuclear backed by pro nuclear who can not even read the official documents they put forward themselves, but who allow themselves to give lessons .....

not resting on anything except infantile fears, and on no serious and rational approach, as if repeating could suffice to create a scientific truth.

You must prefer the Coué method:

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A9thode_Cou%C3%A9
No, it's not dangerous; no, there were no victims; no, pro nuclear do not try to sleep with nonsense; no, it does not mortgage future generations; no it's not an economic ineptness .....
and on no serious and rational approach (read too), as if repeating could be enough to create a scientific truth.

[Bardal]

Listen Flytox, it is useless to argue if a minimum of good faith is not de rigueur ..

I never said that there were no deaths at Chernobyl, I simply said that there were no deaths in OECD countries in 50 years because of nuclear power plants. The OECD does not include Ukraine or the USSR in the 80 years. If you have read something else, or rather if you do not know what the OECD is, perfect your culture, it will not hurt you.


Remain Chernobyl, which is as much a serious accident of a decaying state as the nuclear one, and which did finally only a few dozen dead (it is already too much I agree) to look at hundreds of thousands of coal, oil and gas in Europe alone; I give you an account of your opposition to coal (oil and gas also I hope), but I note that, for example, the network Sortir du Nucléaire proposes to close all the nuclear power and replace it with fossil fuels, including including coal (the arguments used are quite tasty).

As for the classification of the level of dangerousness of various energies, I am not responsible for it (I have neither the means nor the competences) and sends you back to WHO and UNSCEAR, as well as to various scientific organisms like the Paul Scherrer Institute for example. And this can really surprise you, photovoltaics and wind power are responsible for more deaths than nuclear power, with equal production of course; these deaths are few, but their electric production is so weak .. Heal your arguments better, the organizations that I quoted are not companies choir children ...

[djo59]

"I simply said that there had been no deaths in OECD countries in 50 years from nuclear power plants. The OECD does not include Ukraine or the USSR of the 80s." 4
Absolutely agree with you, France is part of the OECD and I know how to trust the benevolence of organizations - official state.
I am thinking in particular of the excellent work of customs officers in 86 who have stopped the radioactive clouds.

Ditto for Ukraine, ex urss. They have counted only 40 dead, how to dare to question them, and we know it is in their gene, have opened freely without any restriction their archives, access to people, .....

Fukushima, baloney. The proof is that a large part of the irradiated area has officially become habitable again. The only mistake of the Japanese had been to have too strict standards at the time, corrected error.

[Adrien (ex-nico239)]

Does this say that at the scale of the needs of the planet is there a source of energy that is of no danger to man?

This morning France Culture broadcast an interesting show on coal a global addiction ...

https://www.franceculture.fr/emissions/ ... n-mondiale

[Bardal]

"I simply said that there had been no deaths in OECD countries in 50 years from nuclear power plants. The OECD does not include Ukraine or the USSR of the 80s." 4
Absolutely agree with you, France is part of the OECD and I know how to trust the benevolence of organizations - official state.
I am thinking in particular of the excellent work of customs officers in 86 who have stopped the radioactive clouds.

Ditto for Ukraine, ex urss. They have counted only 40 dead, how to dare to question them, and we know it is in their gene, have opened freely without any restriction their archives, access to people, .....

Fukushima, baloney. The proof is that a large part of the irradiated area has officially become habitable again. The only mistake of the Japanese had been to have too strict standards at the time, corrected error.

But yes but yes...

[Bardal]

Well, I was probably a little naughty ...

On the background:

- in Ukraine (more exactly in the USSR) in 1986, no one was able to provide precise figures; the state was in a state of deliquescence such that the most trivial measures were not taken (distribution of iodine, rapid evacuation of threatened populations, dispatch of trained personnel to the scene ...) and that the "figures "were not provided; it is moreover this state of deliquescence which explains the accident (power plant controlled by a poorly trained technician and a political framework without any skills, major procedures totally transgressed, uninformed emergency personnel, etc.). Everything had to be reconstructed. What is amazing is that there were no more deaths ...

- the teams delegated by WHO and UNscear are not incompetent who believe the first comer. The assessment carried out, if not rigorously exact, is credible; and that is the best we have, based on solid epidemiological bases, used with all the modesty shown by scientists in the face of a problem that is unprecedented in the history of mankind. If you have another serious study to propose to me, I am ready to take it into consideration. But not the opinion of your concierge, nor that of a lawyer ex-minister more interested in his media appearances than in the truth. I have absolutely nothing to do ...

- In 86, the Chernobyl cloud flew over a part of France, with contamination rates without any impact on the health of the inhabitants, as said Pellerin, head of SCPRI (Mamers was sentenced 4 times for his lie ); if you have a study about the victims of this cloud, I'm interested, of course. If you do not have one, skip peddling the internet ...

- Yes, a large part of the evacuated area in Fukushima has become habitable again. That surprises you? In the same way, never has the fauna been as prosperous as in the forbidden Chernobyl area. When we've done something stupid, it's good to recognize and correct it. Incidentally, no one is allowed to return to the evacuated area of ​​the dam of the three gorges (1000 km2, and more than a million evacuees), nor besides in the lakes of French dams, nor in the 1000 km2 sacrificed for the exploitation of lignite in Germany. But that does not seem to bother you ...

Yes, it's tiresome to see parrots appearing at any moment, the same nonsense without any previous thought. O tempora ... Tomorrow, they will follow anyone, anywhere.

[Flytox]

Listen Flytox, it is useless to argue if a minimum of good faith is not de rigueur ..

Listen bardal, it is useless to argue if a minimum of good faith is not required, who tries to say "no victims" for nuclear and then put his nose in its contradictions talking about 49 deaths? Who manipulates the information without good faith? Apparently as you are not able to guess it, I can tell you, it's you bardal!

I never said that there were no deaths at Chernobyl, I simply said that there were no deaths in OECD countries in 50 years because of nuclear power plants. The OECD does not include Ukraine or the USSR in the 80 years. If you have read anything else, or rather if you do not know what the OECD is, perfect culture, it will not hurt you.

It's a little light, you did not find anything else to escape when you put under your nose your rough manipulations? Soon you'll give us a lesson / a spin on the OECD that is not the subject at all, but it's good for our culture

Remain Chernobyl, which is as much a serious accident of a decaying state as the nuclear one,

This in no way detracts from the catastrophic result, but provides information on the increased dangerousness of this type of technology in a "non-democratic" country, where the security of the population takes precedence over other concerns.

As for the classification of the level of dangerousness of various energies, I am not responsible for it (I have neither the means nor the competences) and sends you back to WHO and UNSCEAR, as well as to various scientific organisms like the Paul Scherrer Institute for example. And this can really surprise you, photovoltaics and wind power are responsible for more deaths than nuclear power, with equal production of course; these deaths are few, but their electricity production is so low.

In the report quoted above we speak of a fork of 49 to close to a million dead. I think that according to his opinion on the question and following the figure used (49 or 1000000) one can fall on a report kW supplied / number of death quite different ...

Treat your arguments better, the organizations I mentioned are not choir companies ...

Take better care of your arguments, cheating among other things on the number of victims does not plead in favor of the nuclear and or organisms that you quoted. Sure they are not disinterested choir companies ...

[Flytox]

- the teams delegated by WHO and UNscear are not incompetent who believe the first comer. The assessment carried out, if not rigorously exact, is credible; and it's the best we have, relaxing on solid epidemiological grounds, employed with all the modesty shown by scientists in the face of a problem that is unprecedented in the history of humanity.

https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... miologique
Epidemiology is a scientific discipline that studies health problems in human populations, their frequency, their distribution in time and in space, as well as factors influencing the health and disease of populations.

The epidemiological bases of this assessment are very fragile "unprecedented" as you point out. The possibilities of errors of appreciation all the greater (in one direction or the other). From there, for the radioactive cloud which flew over France saying that there is "no impact on the health of the inhabitants", it is a question which is still debated, it is not yet decided .... . the disclosure of this sentence "no impact on the health of the inhabitants" on the internet such as, would also be foolish (to declare it for granted).

- Yes, a large part of the evacuated area in Fukushima has become habitable again. That surprises you? In the same way, never has the fauna been as prosperous as in the forbidden Chernobyl area. When we've done something stupid, it's good to recognize and correct it.

I do not follow, what's bullshit? To evacuate the population or to allow people to return to live on it?

Incidentally, no one is allowed to return to the evacuated area of ​​the dam of the three gorges (1000 km2, and more than a million evacuees), nor elsewhere in the lakes of French dams, nor in the 1000 km2 sacrificed for the exploitation of lignite in Germany. But that does not seem to bother you ...

No authorization of agreement, it is territories "lost" for the habitation etc ..., but the possible offenders who would walk there would not risk their life there because of the omnipresent radioactivity ... c is not comparable.

Yes, it's tiresome to see parrots appearing at any moment, the same nonsense without any previous thought. O tempora ... Tomorrow, they will follow anyone, anywhere.

Not better !