Died of fossil fuels, nuclear and hydro

Oil, gas, coal, nuclear (PWR, EPR, hot fusion, ITER), gas and coal thermal power plants, cogeneration, tri-generation. Peakoil, depletion, economics, technologies and geopolitical strategies. Prices, pollution, economic and social costs ...
moinsdewatt
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5111
Registration: 28/09/09, 17:35
Location: Isére
x 554

Re: Deaths from fossil fuels, nuclear and hydroelectric




by moinsdewatt » 16/08/16, 12:25

Solar panels: beware of fire risks

the 27 / 09 / 2013

After several fires, installers and associations alert consumers to the risks of certain photovoltaic panels.

Five houses or hangars burned last year in the Landes, Alsace, Var, Haute-Marne and Savoie.

These buildings were fitted with Scheuten brand photovoltaic panels fitted with Solexus boxes. It is these boxes, manufactured between September 2009 and July 2010, and they alone, that fail.

http://www.ouest-france.fr/europe/franc ... die-362591

For the dead, certainly falling roofs.
0 x
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13644
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1502
Contact :

Re: Deaths from fossil fuels, nuclear and hydroelectric




by izentrop » 16/08/16, 21:58

by the end of the first half of 2005, less than fifty deaths had been directly attributed to this disaster. Almost all were members of the rescue teams who had been exposed to very high doses: a large number died in the months after the accident, but others survived until 2004 ...
... of the 4 thyroid cancer patients, mostly children, all have recovered, with the exception of nine who have died. "Other than that, the international team of experts found no indication of any increase in the incidence of leukemia and cancer in residents affected by Chernobyl" ...
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/rel ... 5/pr38/fr/

WHO report anyway ...
J. de Kervasdoué: "nuclear kills 4200 times less than coal"
http://www.contrepoints.org/2014/06/18/ ... ns-charbon

More fear than harm :)
0 x
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13644
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1502
Contact :

Re: Deaths from fossil fuels, nuclear and hydroelectric




by izentrop » 16/08/16, 23:07

0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538

Re: Deaths from fossil fuels, nuclear and hydroelectric




by Obamot » 17/08/16, 00:45

There is no need to say, with you we will always come up against a misunderstanding of this problem.

The WHO does not deal (or very little) with victims who are in the "background noise" of statistics. In addition, you always give us links that are based on an outdated model of risk taking into account. By doing this you will always find the wrong results. And that can represent a few million deaths per year, without anyone noticing.

Futura Science wrote:Radon, the leading cause of lung cancer after smoking
The fight against smoking, which is constantly increasing with the positive results that we know, should not make us forget the second vector of lung cancer, which is radon, as recalled by the BEH (Bulletin weekly epidemiological) in its latest publication.

Tobacco-radon interaction
But you also have to consider the interaction between tobacco and radon. According to a recent statistical study carried out recently in nine European countries on a total sample of 21356 people, in the absence of other causes of death, the absolute risks of lung cancer at the age of 75 are 0,4% for 0 Bq, 0,5% for 100 Bq and 0,7% for 400 Bq for a person who has never smoked. On the other hand, these figures change to 10%, 12% and 16% for a cigarette smoker. We can therefore consider that tobacco multiplies by a minimum of 25 the risk of getting lung cancer by exposure to radon
Source: http://www.futura-sciences.com/magazine ... sme-11837/

The same goes with "low dose irradiation", it will be the people at risk who will drink first: smokers, drinkers, obese, allergic, drug addicts, etc. (or those who are genetically predisposed). But it will not be written anywhere that they will have died as a result of Chernobyl or Fukushima .... Because we simply won't know it immediately. Unless we do a mathematical model that takes into account the impact of this "low dose irradiation"on the genome (which was done by recompiling hundreds of studies). And there the minimum figure due to Chernobyl, over 70 years, is> 1 million deaths. 2 or 3 million in Tokyo most likely. Sorry. .

But we've told you that dozens of times, so why insist so much each time : roll: : Evil:

Why do you think that Germany and Switzerland are so keen to get out of nuclear power if it was so dangerous that you pretend!

► View Text
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79116
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972

Re: Deaths from fossil fuels, nuclear and hydroelectric




by Christophe » 17/08/16, 01:08



Already it is intoxicating because the director of the plant died a few months after the disaster ... of cancer .... necessarily not related to the disaster according to the official version ...

Then I strongly suggest you to go for a small internship of 3 or 4 weeks in the "red" zone of Fukushima ... the hotels are there now and for a few more years at an unbeatable price !!
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538

Re: Deaths from fossil fuels, nuclear and hydroelectric




by Obamot » 17/08/16, 02:02

A point with which I 100% agree with this report (I do not capitalize because in fact the report is a "Communiqué") is specifically this point:

WHO wrote:In addition to the direct impact on the health of the population, the report notes that the psychological impact could have consequences on health and well-being. According to experts, these aspects should not be overlooked in the context of global action.

It is indeed certain, that if the WHO made in the catastrophism while telling the truth, that could have consequences possibly worse than low dose irradiation creating a subject of concern in populations at risk, and which can cause pathologies linked to the stress of the anxieties of subject who can be influenced.

But the WHO should nevertheless assume and say "off" the reality of the situation (at least for medical circles, I am not sure that this is done, having worked with them for almost 15 years ...!) On the other hand I noted that they take a luxury of precaution to minimize and hide the matter, like this:

WHO wrote:[...] no observable increase in cancer rates is expected compared to the reference rates [...]

According to what I said above, can be understood by the fact that there will be no increase since lost in the fog of the background noise of the statistics: this is what they are criticized for, it is to use this "background noise" to say that there is nothing ....!

WHO wrote:[...] notes however that the risk estimated for certain cancers increased in given categories of the population of [...]

Ah well ... there are still risks then? And as the fallout is such as spots on the skin of a leopard, this is a beautiful smoke that means nothing. These spots can just as easily be found in Fukushima prefecture as 500 km or 60 km in the playground of a school in Tokyo ... Rubbish! (We knew very well that the kids could no longer go to the school yards, but it's like for France, the cloud stopped at the prefecture of Fukushima and the school yards: get around nothing to see...)

In any case it will not have been the WHO which will have helped countries to get out of nuclear ....!

I also like this one:

WHO wrote:[...] "The main cause for concern mentioned in this report concerns certain risks of cancer linked to specific demographic areas and factors"[...]

: Cheesy: yes, which ones? Or? When? How and why? Thank you .... next question ...!

WHO wrote:[...] "A breakdown of the data according to age, sex and proximity to the nuclear power plant indicates that the risk of cancer is increased for people located in the most contaminated areas. Outside of these ... no observable increase in the incidence of cancer is expected. " [...]

Morality, if I translate: there is nothing, except when there is something. But when there is nothing, there is nothing!

: Cheesy: : Cheesy: : Cheesy: : Arrow: : Cry:
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963

Re: Deaths from fossil fuels, nuclear and hydroelectric




by Ahmed » 17/08/16, 12:16

You forget the "notice" of Kervadoue: isn't he the specialist are weirdos with whom you had an unsuccessful dialogue (?), Christophe?
PS: from Kervadoué wrote this cryptic sentence: "Lack of evidence is not evidence of absence"Does that remind you of anything? : Lol:
Last edited by Ahmed the 17 / 08 / 16, 12: 25, 1 edited once.
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79116
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972

Re: Deaths from fossil fuels, nuclear and hydroelectric




by Christophe » 17/08/16, 12:23

Ahmed wrote:You forget the "notice" of Kervadoue: isn't he the specialist are weirdos with whom you had an unsuccessful dialogue (?), Christophe?


If you think about this discussion: energies-renewable / disinformation-the-renewable-energies-are-the-bankruptcy-of-EDF-t14745.html it was a certain Jean Louis Butré ...

Otherwise, I don't think I ever talked to Kervadoué ...
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963

Re: Deaths from fossil fuels, nuclear and hydroelectric




by Ahmed » 17/08/16, 12:28

Yes, you're right: the similarity of intellectual functioning has misled me! I think (without forcing!) that a dialogue with Kervadoue would have led to the same impasse.
Last edited by Ahmed the 17 / 08 / 16, 12: 47, 1 edited once.
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79116
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972

Re: Deaths from fossil fuels, nuclear and hydroelectric




by Christophe » 17/08/16, 12:45

Ahmed wrote:PS: from Kervadoué wrote this cryptic sentence: "Lack of evidence is not evidence of absence"Does that remind you of anything? : Lol:


Sherlock Holmes maybe? : Mrgreen:
0 x

Go back to "Fossil energies: oil, gas, coal and nuclear electricity (fission and fusion)"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 321 guests