When you burn the remains of these ancient life forms it releases their ghosts and that’s what kills so many when they breathe haunted air

Absolute numbers are meaningless. It needs to be weighted against how much electricity was produced with each.

(And why is solar not mentioned? Plenty of solar installers die from falling off of roofs and whatnot.)

Genuinely curious as to how and where we got the 140k deaths from renewables? It doesn't appear on the paper you linked but it cites the structural collapse of a Hydroeletric Dam in china which caused 230k deaths.

I'm curious where you got the renewables figure from, is it from dam collapses (which are structural failures rather than a product of the power source) or is there some sort of issue with wind turbines where they magically sprout legs and march into Cities like Godzilla with PMS?

Nuclear is cool. With proper regulation, it's amazing!

BUT, it's not what we must be focusing on right now. Renewable sources of energy are safer and much MUCH cheaper to implement than nuclear. Also, renewables don't require decades to come online.

So, "why renewables? Just go nuclear brooo" is a bad bad argument, likely made in bad faith by OnG companies to delay implementation of renewables.

The goal should be "how do we go from the status quo to a non GHG emitting source of energy generation as fast as possible?".

A cow is more likely to kill you than a shark (on land).

Yeah there's a reason I'm leaving the energy sector. The choice to use fossil fuels for grid in the last 50yrs has been and will continue to be a purely political one.

Yeah nobody ever died here (an uranium mine) and you absolutely don't need any fossil fuel to make it works.

Nuclear energy is better than fossils, but it's far from green.

I'd be willing to put money on the amount of deaths from fossil fuel power generation related accidents (mining coal isn't exactly the safest job) is higher than the rest on its own. Even before the millions who've had their lives shortened by the pollution.

Quoting 5k deaths when Chernobyl was a single incident probably contributing to most of them.

I never even considered that nuclear power isn't renewable until now. 🤣 Can't make more radioactive rocks if we run out.

Incidentally, I live in Sacramento, in the California Central Valley, which is desert. Recently, its gotten up to 117° here (which is still low compared to Death Valley).

Solar is awesome.

Oh look, yet another person with an opinion on the LNT model for radiation exposure. As a safety professional, let me explain in really basic terms.

Everyone knows the model is pretty shit for long-term exposure to small doses. This isn't news, and hasn't been new for the past half century.

Similarly, we all know that chemical exposure levels are, for the most part, entirely bullshit. The exposure lengths are often based on 40 years of 40 hours a week, which is almost never true, and are even then very conservative.

The problem is that you can't get accurate data. You can't expose a couple of hundred people to hazardous conditions for decades, just to get better data. Everyone bitching about LNT for radiation or all sorts of chemical and biological exposure limits is overlooking one key detail.

We don't have a better model. We can't develop a better model in any remotely ethical way with current or near future technology either.

Does that include like building the hoover dam or what?

Sooo you base this on an opinion piece disguised as journal article in a low impact journal by a guy that has, let's say interesting views on radiation damage and global warming.