By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 02 June 2011
Edit Thread
Troll_Whisperer said:
Kasz216 said:
Troll_Whisperer said:
 

There's no price for human life.

Even without those it's a positive balance.

Use common sense.

If it was a positive balance it wouldn't need subsidies... because the electircity would be cheaper...

and less people die in Nuclear related accidents and uranium mining then mining accidents related to Solar and Turbine power.

Wouldn't it be still be cheaper than fuel in the long run? Not initially of course.

About nuclear: one screw up in history is enough to fuck up really badly and that's enough for me. Japan was close.

Anyway, I don't think we'll agree here, and I have to go dinner. Let's leave the conversation here?

 

I have to disagree.  You seem to be just trying to gracefully back out of an issue you backed yourself in.  Afterall "There is no price for human life."

including cherynobal far less people die per year.  Do you know how many people are expected to die due to chernobyl?

4,050 or so.

Do you know how many people died due to chernobyl so far?

50.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/index.html

 

How many people do you think die each year falling off roofs installing solar panels?  Or mining the ore that is needed to make solar panels.