Nicolas Hulot postpones the 50% nuclear decline target set for 2025

[Bardal]

But, my friends, if you have some studies supporting your say, nothing prevents you from quoting them.

These figures come from epidemiological studies done by the WHO or the IEA ... I know that it is probably sold in the lobby of the nuk, but finally ... Why would I believe the statements of some people , not especially competent in this field and who have made no inquiry, no statistical series, no mortality study, and hold the conclusions of specialists of the question for null and void?

The conspiracy theories are certainly practical (they can say anything), but it ends up tired ...

Just to correct reading errors:

- it is the coal which is the champion all categories of the number of deaths in the world; but it is also the first source of energy, the one that provides the most TeraWh ... so, compared to the production ... That said, the only German plants do more than 5000 deaths per year in Europe (including 500 approximately in France); Since 1986 (Chernobyl), so it is about 150 000 dead in Europe alone, due to the only German carbo-electric activity ... But who cares? Dead as banal ... pfeu ...

- hydraulics is obviously less dead, but produces much less; disasters at dams can be daunting, with far wider consequences than immediate deaths

- photovoltaics is responsible for few deaths, but it produces so little; it is the wind that is the least deadly after nuclear power; these deaths are mainly due to accidents at work. For the nuclear sector, the majority of the deaths are related to the accidents of the mines of extraction of the ore and the accidents of work on the construction sites of the power stations; very very few are related to radioactivity.

But why be so indignant at such information ("in the pay of Arhevah or BDF"); after all this has already been said about this forum: energies-fossil-nuclear / dead-of-energies-fossil-nuclear-and-hydroelectric-t10669.html

This is just a reminder ...

[sen-no-sen]

Nuclear power does have a much higher terror capital than its fossil counterparts, and that's what happened in 1986 at Chernobyl.
On the other hand, if you ask the same thing about 1952 to London* I do not think it brings back memories.
However, nuclear power does not make it a white knight, because nuclear power has high risk capital (I am thinking mainly of waste), particularly during the period of intensification of terrorist attacks and economic collapse, and it is above all that the nuclear power does not weigh much in the global energy balance (about 7 to 8%).
It will be very difficult even in the most "nuclear" scenarios to exceed the 20% bar of nuclear energy production.
Nuclear power plants in France - stable country ... for now - I want, but in Pakistan or Angola it is not really a good idea!
Therefore, there may be questions about the relevance of the electro-nuclear sector, which in my opinion will remain a parenthesis reserved for some industrialized countries.





* The London Smog and his 10 000 dead ...

[Flytox]

But, my friends, if you have some studies supporting your say, nothing prevents you from quoting them.

These figures come from epidemiological studies done by the WHO or the IEA ... I know that it is probably sold in the lobby of the nuk, but finally ... Why would I believe the statements of some people , not especially competent in this field and who have made no inquiry, no statistical series, no mortality study, and hold the conclusions of specialists of the question for null and void?

The conspiracy theories are certainly practical (they can say anything), but it ends up tired ...

It is "cute" this speech, very official of the position of our national Nukleocrats. And hop, immediately we get out of the conspiracy theory to cut short the dispute and make believe that we are the victims of those, who have also studied the subject with the same skills, but who have nothing to sell ....

[Bardal]

OK, but you didn't provide any references, of those people "who have also studied the subject with the same skills, but who have nothing to sell". I hope they exist ...

[Remundo]

So Bardal, do you feel that 50 died as a result of Chernobyl?

[Bardal]

Oh, I do not value anything, I do not have the skills, and even if I had them, I did not conduct any field studies to assess the consequences of Chernobyl ...

On the other hand, others have done it, under the aegis of the WHO and the IEA, with all the competences of a team gathering epidemiologists, doctors, oncologists, statisticians, demographers ...; they published a report, accessible to all, consequent, cautious, marking its limits, as we expect from serious scientists, and making consensus between them ( https://www.greenfacts.org/fr/tchernobyl/ ). If you want to criticize him, challenge him from your personal studies, or scientific arguments, you can ... I'll read carefully.

Just a note: the number of 4000 potential premature deaths, as explained there, is highly questionable; it is estimated by applying the law of "linear without threshold", today abandoned by most nuclear physicians, who think that it is false and greatly overestimates the effects of radioactivity; it is therefore a maximum encryption, but they applied it to prevent any controversy ...

[Remundo]

Bardal, either you are a lobbyist or a fool: your manifest and prepared dialectical skill lets me lean towards the first proposition.

You do not like linear relationship without threshold, so go make yourself a little hormesis effect.

[Bardal]

Bardal, either you are a lobbyist or a fool: your manifest and prepared dialectical skill lets me lean towards the first proposition.

You do not like linear relationship without threshold, so go make yourself a little hormesis effect.

When we have no more argument, we handle the insult ... and the conspiracy theory ...

[Ahmed]

Remundo do not speak of conspiracy, only of partisanship, which has nothing to do with it. As for the other hypothesis, he only mentioned it in order to dismiss it immediately. Branding conspiracy and attack ad hominem is a classic of the controversial response ...

[moinsdewatt]

Then if the nuclear does not kill, I advise you to go personally to help Fukushima ... there is still work ...

In Fukushima there are more than a thousand workers permanently. Fall like flies?