It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

wind power more deadly than nuclear

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   
more people die from wind power than nuclear power

newsbusters.org...

According to the Caithness Windfarm Information Forum, there were 35 fatalities associated with wind turbines in the United States from 1970 through 2010. Nuclear energy, by contrast, did not kill a single American in that time.

The meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979 did not kill or injure anyone, since the power plant's cement containment apparatus did its job - the safety measures put in place were effective. Apparently the safety measures associated with wind energy are not adequate to prevent loss of life.

we have waited decades for wind/solar to supply us. will these techs ever work on a large scale?
can we afford NOT to go nuclear?




posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by works4dhs
 


Sounds like a crock of hooey to me; the article doesn't say how the 35 deaths over 40 years [associated with wind turbine] occurred. Looks like a bit of dis-information being spread due to the accidents in Japan.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by works4dhs
 


Stats, damned stats. Does anyone else think the comparison is really not worth the time? Especially in the areas of risk weighing. Maybe it's the birds retaliating in concert with sonic attacks, and secret atlantean tech.

Seriously though, lets consider the risks in the event of a windmill meltdown. "Oh no, it's broke, fix it, wait lets have a coffee first."

In the case of a nuclear meltdown, " RUUUUN!!!! it's Gojira!"


what other interesting mortality stats are there? Death from sexual asphyxiation (accidental)? Death from Narcolepsy mixed with heavy machinery? Death from alcohol? Death from lightning strikes? stats, damned stats...

edit on 19-3-2011 by dl2one because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by works4dhs
 


That's only in America (three mile island was a mishap, not a meltdown). I would like to see the comparison to the rest of the world. You have to also realize that people can't just build a nuclear reactor in their backyard like they can a wind turbine so of course there will be more deaths in that sense.

Is wind more dangerous than nuclear? No way. I can't believe this article is assuming this. It's like when they say more people die in car crashes than plane crashes. Yea maybe but when a car crashes hundreds aren't killed at once.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   
But remember, some people say, "radiation is good for you"


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   
funny thing is i have never seen anyone get radiation sickness when a wind turbine melts. Should a wind turbine melt, we can clean it up and replace it...right away, not 10,000 years waiting for it to be safe to approach.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Lets go back to using candles... Problem solved.


might even save us a few bucks on gas/electricity



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   
fatalities due to meltdowns in the USA? none
fatalities due to nuclear attacks on US cities? none
windfarm fatalities? approx



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by MzMorbid
 


At first, I thought the same thing. When I read the article and looked at the source links contained within it, I realized that this is probably not disinformation.

The specifics regarding the types of accidents can be found in the link sourced in the article. Or you can find them here; www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk...

On the other hand, I don't believe it when they say that not one person has been killed by the nuclear industry. I'm sure that there have been accidents during construction and maintenance of these facilities as well, that have resulted in death. Furthermore, the problem with documenting the death rate associated with the nuclear industry is that radiation is an invisible killer and it's not always easy to pinpoint it as the cause, or should I say that there is a high degree of deniability.

I watched a documentary once where they were attempting to raise a sunken WWII submarine from the sea floor and the interesting part was that they were not raising it for it's historic value, but rather for it's steel. You see, as it turns out, any steel made anywhere in the world after the detonation of the first atomic bomb is somewhat contaminated with minute radioactive particles from the atmosphere that enter the steel during the forging process. Steel forged prior to the first atomic blast does not have this contamination and it's highly valued for use in the manufacture of precision instruments like gyroscopes used in the aerospace industry.

I listened to a scientist the other night on the Rachel Maddow show where he stated that you don't need iodine tablets if you just don't drink the milk. He emphatically stated that the radio active element that attacks the thyroid, (which the iodine is supposed to protect us from) enters the body via the intake of milk products. He explained that this particular radio active element settles on the grass where the dairy cows eat it and it turns up in the milk. He stated that there is no other way for this particular element to enter the body, so if you don't drink the milk, you don't need the iodine supplement. He also explained that different radioactive elements attack different parts of the body and that Cesium attacks the whole body.

So, who's to say how many thyroid cancer deaths can be attributed to the nuclear industry? Who's to say how may bone cancer deaths can be attributed to the nuclear industry? Just because we can't "pin the tail on the donkey," doesn't mean that the donkey isn't there.

Anyway, It appears to me that the vast majority of accidents in the wind turbine industry are caused by either structural and/or blade failure and "ice throws." I really think that vertical axis wind turbine technology will soon replace the current propellor type turbines being used today and we will see a decline in the accident rates associated with the industry.

I for one am not ready for more nuclear power plants. I am however, for the immediate and full disclosure of suppressed ZPE technology which would totally eliminate the need for nuclear and/or fossil fuel generated energy.


edit on 19-3-2011 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   
"""""Nuclear energy, by contrast, did not kill a single American in that time. """""

Oh yes it did. Some of us have relatives that died from nuclear accidents.

www.lutins.org/nukes.html

General Electric running those 2 nuclear jet turbines in the 60's bolted to the ground for testing emitted lots of radiation over the worlds bread basket. Same with the Nevada Nuclear Tests, they dumped radiation over the worlds bread basket. Now people eat that and come down with cancer and die. Did they die from nuclear energy?

It's a career joke that all our nuclear field people are the best money America spends...they don't live past 20 years and we don't have to pay them retirements. Veterans Affairs was killing Veterans by leaving radioactive pellets in them for too long for "treatment"...that's nuclear energy deaths as well.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by works4dhs
 


WHat a crock! Its nonsense. They doing it wrong on purpose then? Basically, the work horse of energy should be Geo Thermal. And Wade/Tide, with wind and solar back up. And Free electro magnetic too!!!!

However, there is an enormous difference between dangers to workers, ie. accidents and millions of people dying with the environment ruined for millions of years. Just a huge difference man! Anyone with a brain can see that!

That risk is 100% There is no way that its not going down without accidents and injuries. The only reason we have nuclear risking all of our lives is not for the missiles. They have advanced scalare weapons now.

Its because the nuclear gives fuel to their black op programs and space programs/TR3bs, and what not.

They would gladly sacrifice the world for their luxurious tech progression which they're not sharing by the way.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   
omg what a load of crapola!!!

this cant be right. no way.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   
OMG! The U.S. uses one of the safest Nuclear power production methods, and the only mishap in the private sector is the Three Mile Island incident?!?! Wait, what about all those other nuke plants in the U.S. that have operated since then that haven't had a mishap.

Hate to say it, but nuke power is one of the cleanest and most reliable fuel source. The reason their isn't huge mishap numbers, is the way they have gone about their business. From maintenance procedures that eliminate human error through redundancy, to the nuclear detection monitors that every worker has to wear. It's not like the wind-farm industry where any idiot that knows how to put a hard-hat on is offered employment.

The events in Japan with the nuclear reactor could not have been planned for. And considering what happened and the after-effects, I'd say they've done a fantastic job at averting a worse-case scenario. All these people in fear of radiation poisoning, you should get your geiger counter, and start by monitoring a brick wall. Next move to a banana with your counter. The amount of radiation that will affect us Americans is nominal. There is more "radioactive" items in your household.

Oh and to poster that said Nuke workers only live 20 years. Explain how my relatives are still alive and quite healthy considering their exposure to nuclear power for over 20 years... What I believe is you found an article with a tidbit of info on the "entire" nuclear field. There's a lot of positives that have come from nuclear development, and not in the munition/weapon department.

I'm sure you weren't aware that a nuclear powered submarine could pull into a large city port, hook up its cables, and power that city without overloading the reactor. Oh and how many nuclear acccidents have been associated with the Navy?

**Edit
Oh, and the reason they can identify nuclear radiation with workers is they give a base-line sort of exam where they xray the entire body, they do chemiacal tests. Basically they know what you have and from there they monitor each individual to make sure there is no radiation poisioning or whatever.
edit on 3/19/2011 by saabster5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   
I think when it comes to matters like this statistics can be highly misleading. You can't only think about how many deaths have actually occurred, the potential risks are also important. The only people that could be killed in a wind power accident are the workers within feet of the turbines. Whereas a complete nuclear meltdown has the potential to kill 10's of thousands, feesibly millions. So let's say the odds of a wind turbine accident happening in any given years are 1/1. then your going to have 1 or 2 deaths a year. Now let's assume (totally made up numbers by the way, just sort of a thought experiment) that the odds of a nuclear disaster happening is 1/20000 then you could still be looking at 3-4 maybe more deaths per year... on average.

The reason that the statistics aren't matching this common sense truth is that we do not yet have a large enough sample. It's like flipping a coin. You have 50% chance of getting either heads, or tails. However, that does not meen that after flipping a coin twice your going to have 1 heads and 1 tails. You could expect with high probability that in a sample of 100 flips you would get tails 3, 4, 5, or more times or more times in a row. And that could just as easily happen at the beginning of your sample. What that 50% percent chance does mean is that over a large enough sample your going to see a pattern of 1 heads for 1 tails emerging.

So basically what I'm saying is that the statistics on the dangers of wind power, relative to nuclear power, aren't going to be meaningfull at all until we've been taking data like this for... oh say, if the odds are 1/10000, a few million years. After a few million years of taking this data we can look at the statistics and draw meaningfull conclusions.

Someone saying that because more people have died from windpower in the last 40 years, therefore wind power is more dangerous, is incredibly foolish frankly. It's so incredibly idiotic in fact, that I have to wonder whether the person who put this line of reasoning forward in the first place did not have some hidden agenda.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by saabster5

The events in Japan with the nuclear reactor could not have been planned for.editby]edit on 3/19/2011 by saabster5 because: (no reason given)


Sorry to only quote one line, also sorry I do not have the links, but someone quit at GE in 1976 over design flaws in those same reactors in Japan. So yes, something could have been done a long time ago to at the very least make redundant failsafes in the spent fuel rod containment area or lack thereof.
edit on 19-3-2011 by dl2one because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by dl2one
 


So you're telling me that plans needed to be in place for a 8.9 earthquake and subsequent tsunami. The fourth largest quake in recorded history, and it should have already been planned for. Do you realize how many extra millions, perhaps billions of dollars would have to go into making a nuclear reactor completely safe from earthquakes and tsunamis? Sure, it would be worth it in the long run if there happens to be a quake or tsunami that affects the reactor, but let's talk real world here. How many of the thousands of reactors worldwide are prepared for a 9.0 earthquake and a subsequent tsunami? How many of the thousands of reactors are prepared for 9.0 earthquake even. Let me remind you that Japan's coast supposedly moved 13 feet. Now, how can you plan for something like that. Oh, yes you can I suppose. You can not build the reactors....and then how would Japan have had its power produced?

And back to the money aspect of building one of these earthquake/tsunami proof reactor sites. You wouldn't have any problem paying the extra fees that would be incurred in building this super-safe structure? Because the cost of building it super-safe, would be passed down to the consumer. And we're not talking a few dollars. We're talking hundreds perhaps thousands of dollars each bill, so the company could recoup just a small portion of a "stupid" investment. Yes, I said it. It would be stupid to spend that sort of excess on preparation for a 9.0 earthquake. Because, wait for it....There aren't 9.0 earthquakes that happen that frequently.

*edit
Oh, and since 1976 those reactors have had design flaws....Gotchya. So the radiation that's been emanating from those reactor for over 35 years hasn't been noticed until the reactor was messed up by a little earthquake/tsunami?
edit on 3/19/2011 by saabster5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by saabster5
 


I'm not telling you anything, it's pointless.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   
If you want to play the "death statistics" game in order to prove the viability of a power source then you need to include all of the data. This data used is "cherry picking" at it's finest. The deaths from windmill farms have mostly been during the construction phase, how many died while constructing the reactors? Until you have this information then making such a claim is rediculous at best.
edit on 19-3-2011 by LeaderOfProgress because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   
When they include in the fatal cases things like this:


121 - Human injury - 13/03/2000 - Rio Vista, CA - USA - Pilot was flying in an area cluttered with wind turbines and powerlines. He hit a line and plunged 120 feet. Lucky to be alive but should not have been flying in the area in
the first place.

And:

131 - Fatal - 29/07/2000 - Baraboo, WI - USA - 150 foot high turbine "Plane crash kills 4 men SW of Baraboo". The plane was flying in fog and hit a wind turbine. Authorities found marks on a 150-foot wind generator pole.

And:

812 - Fatal - 29/08/2009 - Iowa - USA - "Student succumbs during climb up turbine". A 60-year-old student lost consciousness during a wind turbine climb with his classmates at the Estherville campus of Iowa Lakes Community College Friday morning. The male student was transferred by ambulance to the hospital where he died.


I guess we can conclude that the comparison is biased.

Not one of those fatal accidents is directly attributed to wind power, unless that was the reason for the supposed suicide in one of the cases.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   
I believe that if the author of the OP article really wanted to drive home a point, then he should have compared nuclear power fatalities to petroleum, natural gas and coal related fatalities, since those are the primary sources of power in the US.



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join