Clean energy, not coal, is state's be...

Clean energy, not coal, is state's best bet

There are 12 comments on the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal story from Aug 2, 2013, titled Clean energy, not coal, is state's best bet. In it, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal reports that:

Last month, President Barack Obama fulfilled a key campaign promise to take significant action on climate change by unveiling a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 17% by 2020.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#1 Aug 3, 2013
Yup, what is needed is clean, reliable energy. One word... "nuclear".

LOVE is a four letter word. So is LFTR. Liquid Fluoride Thorium Recyclers are the leanest, cleanest, greenest form of proven reliable energy bar none. And they don't require shaving the forests off mountains or killing millions of birds and bats.
masterblaster

Mexico

#3 Aug 3, 2013
KitemanSA wrote:
Yup, what is needed is clean, reliable energy. One word... "nuclear".
LOVE is a four letter word. So is LFTR. Liquid Fluoride Thorium Recyclers are the leanest, cleanest, greenest form of proven reliable energy bar none. And they don't require shaving the forests off mountains or killing millions of birds and bats.
Nuclear just kills everything,except roaches like you.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#4 Aug 3, 2013
Your facts are wrong. Nuclear kills almost nothing and no one. It is the SAFEST electricity source of all.

Indeed, if you add up ALL the deaths from nuclear ANYTHING, including the bombs, nuclear has killed fewer prople than get killed each and every year by renewable energy.

I know you will be unable to understand that or accept it, but it is none-the-less quite true.

If you want SAFE power, nuclear is the clear choise.
ummmmmm

Albuquerque, NM

#6 Aug 3, 2013
solarpro wrote:
<quoted text>The only safe nuclear reactor is 93 million miles away. The indirect deaths caused by radiation leakage are not calculated because little is known about the exposure levels associated with the release of nuclear material. They may occur years after exposure and are mostly ignored ,especially by the proponents of nuclear power. To say nuclear systems cause no deaths is deceptive at best. Making comparisons between nuclear power related deaths and auto accidents,smoking,sky diving,swimming,sports related and others just makes you look foolish. Cite your sources on deaths related to renewable energy . Falling off a roof is pretty thin evidence.
.
this ignores the environmental damage just the production of solar panels does.
koto

Sunnyvale, CA

#7 Aug 3, 2013
ummmmmm wrote:
<quoted text>
.
this ignores the environmental damage just the production of solar panels does.
Such as ?? Coal,oil and nuclear are cleaner I suppose.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#8 Aug 3, 2013
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs2...
"Nearly 2 million people a year die prematurely from illness attributable to indoor air pollution due to solid fuel use (2004 data)."
Hmmm, on reading my statement from my earlier post, I can see a potential point of miscommunication. I wrote "Nuclear kills almost nothing and no one". The almost was supposed to apply to both nothing AND no one, i.e. ALMOST no one. I can see how it may have been read the other way. So I did not intend to say that nuclear causes no deaths, merely that it causes very few. Indeed, the number may be as high as ~5000 from all nuclear industry causes MINUS the bombs. But not likely to be much higher.
By the way, that "safe nuclear power" plant 93Mmiles away kills ~9000 people every year in the US alone. So it is not so safe as all that. And I didn't even count those deaths in the "renewables" column. ;)
koto

Sunnyvale, CA

#9 Aug 3, 2013
KitemanSA wrote:
http://www.who.int/mediacentre /factsheets/fs292/en/
"Nearly 2 million people a year die prematurely from illness attributable to indoor air pollution due to solid fuel use (2004 data)."
Hmmm, on reading my statement from my earlier post, I can see a potential point of miscommunication. I wrote "Nuclear kills almost nothing and no one". The almost was supposed to apply to both nothing AND no one, i.e. ALMOST no one. I can see how it may have been read the other way. So I did not intend to say that nuclear causes no deaths, merely that it causes very few. Indeed, the number may be as high as ~5000 from all nuclear industry causes MINUS the bombs. But not likely to be much higher.
By the way, that "safe nuclear power" plant 93Mmiles away kills ~9000 people every year in the US alone. So it is not so safe as all that. And I didn't even count those deaths in the "renewables" column. ;)
Water kills even more. Your point is mute. No one knows how many die from nuclear leakage.....no charts to predict that accurately . The population of Japan near the damaged power plants will be suffering for years to come from radiation exposure.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#10 Aug 4, 2013
True, but they will suffer ever more, MUCH more, from the FEAR of negligable radiation exposure. Such fear has already killed about 1000 people in Japan. The more "deadly" of the two large studies suggests that the long term death rate from Fukushima will be about 130 people. The less "deadly", but with better data suggests there will be no observable change in cancer rates.

It turns out that there has to be a LOT of radiation for there to be issues.
zot

Santiago, Chile

#11 Aug 5, 2013
KitemanSA wrote:
True, but they will suffer ever more, MUCH more, from the FEAR of negligable radiation exposure. Such fear has already killed about 1000 people in Japan. The more "deadly" of the two large studies suggests that the long term death rate from Fukushima will be about 130 people. The less "deadly", but with better data suggests there will be no observable change in cancer rates.
It turns out that there has to be a LOT of radiation for there to be issues.
It is not reliably known how much radiation is harmful. Over time, even low level exposure has been found to cause cancers. Japan has enough leakage to possibly kill thousands long term.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#12 Aug 6, 2013
zot wrote:
<quoted text>It is not reliably known how much radiation is harmful. Over time, even low level exposure has been found to cause cancers. Japan has enough leakage to possibly kill thousands long term.
The same thing can be said in reverse. It is not reliably known how much radiation is beneficial; but there does appear to be a beneficial range. Indeed, the radiation release at Fukushima may actually save lives in the long run. This phenomenon is called radiation hormesis. Hormesis is a widely recognized phenomenon in many biological response processes. And the experience around Chernobyl supports the contention. Seems that the overall cancer rate for those dusted with significant levels of Chernobyl fall out is LOWER than in the US. Other factors may be involved, but there it is. Chernobyl SEEMS to have saved lives.
whats up

Sulaymaniyah, Iraq

#13 Aug 6, 2013
KitemanSA wrote:
<quoted text> The same thing can be said in reverse. It is not reliably known how much radiation is beneficial; but there does appear to be a beneficial range. Indeed, the radiation release at Fukushima may actually save lives in the long run. This phenomenon is called radiation hormesis. Hormesis is a widely recognized phenomenon in many biological response processes. And the experience around Chernobyl supports the contention. Seems that the overall cancer rate for those dusted with significant levels of Chernobyl fall out is LOWER than in the US. Other factors may be involved, but there it is. Chernobyl SEEMS to have saved lives.
Source ??

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#14 Aug 6, 2013
I've read about this in a number of places but the most recent was this.

http://bravenewclimate.com/2013/07/29/nuclear...

''The Chernobyl accident raised radiation levels over a large area in three countries. So for over 25 years, many of the people in the areas have been eating food with higher than normal radiation levels. What has been the health impact? Happily, we don’t need to consult hundreds of studies and compensate for differential age structures, unemployment rates, dietary shifts, population movements and other factors that make epidemiology such a difficult science, we can instead look at stuff that is easily measured and the results are clear. In the countries most affected by the Chernobyl fallout, Ukraine, Belarus and Russia, there have been some 14 million cancer cases since the accident. World cancer rates are collated on the GLOBOCAN data base. No fancy statistics, no studies, just a simple count of cases. How many of the 14 million were due to Chernobyl? In a very real sense the number doesn’t matter because the cancer registries also tell us that if three countries had had Australian (or US) cancer rates, they’d have had 20 million cancers during this period. That’s 6 million additional cancers from things that neither the German nor the Australian Greens are lobbying against."

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Milwaukee Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Possible lion sighting on city's north side Mon GrowingLion 4
Milwaukee Sanctuary City War Zone Mon Thuggsville 3
Review: Ross Innovative Employment Solutions Ro... (Apr '14) Mon Chickmate 3
Washington Heights Youth Flag Football League Mon sdl1981 1
News Oshkosh residents troubled over possible KFC site (Feb '10) Jul 29 Chickee 15
News Milwaukee man shoots dog, mistaking it for repo... Jul 28 Mega Monster 3
News It's time to end the Milwaukee Bus System in Ge... Jul 27 kazrjz 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Milwaukee Mortgages