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.

@mrstickball:

It's not just laws that benefit one company over another, but laws that benefit companies over consumers as well. Where do you think all of the anti-litigious propaganda comes from? Big corporations, who spread misinformation in order to cheat consumers out of their rights. They actually fool consumers into lobbying their own rights away.

And that is why I said the government needs to be available to ensure that contracts are adhered to, and if companies lie to consumers, they are made to pay for it. 

If the company ends up being the only one on the market (as is the dream of most capitalist business owners), they'll essentially be able to do whatever they want within an unregulated market (not to mention tha the lack of competition will lead to poor quality products at higher prices). The only way to maintain competition is to have a regulated market, else at one point you'll have companies eliminating their competition based on their resources (buying them out, having huge advertising campaigns that eclipse the competition), not on the quality of their products/services.

Care to give some examples of this happening? I'd like some examples of singular companies that maintain a monopoly for a significant amount of time with no interference from any other company. 

You are aware that there's no socialism in Romania, no? Socialism, and the whole left wing for that manner, has pretty much disappeared from Romania since the fall of the Communist regime (doesn't surprise me., as Romanian's have been typically supporters of right wing conservative ideals, and were more sympathetic to the Nazis rather than the Communists).  Everything's been privatized. I'm not sure there are any significant regulations to the market. Laws meant to protect the consumer are useless. Health care isn't free etc.

You had ~50 years of communism. That was my point. Comparatively, many places didn't have the said 50 years of communism and have fared much better.

Of the countries you mentione, I'm quite sure New Zealand is much more socialist than Romania is. Plus, deregulation didn't reallz helo Iceland, no?

According to virtually any economic freedom score, you are wrong. Heritage's Freedom Index puts Romania at #65, and New Zealand at #4 in terms of overall economic freedom. Although Romania is certainly improving.

Also, I had no ideea that the US has half the population of Romania.

Ohio. The state I live in. I wanted to pick a state that is roughly analogous to Romania (we have about the same size/population density)

Sigh.

http://cricket.biol.sc.edu/chernobyl/papers/TORCH.pdf

30,000 to 60,000 deaths. That's also in Wikipedia, check the Chernobyl disaster article.

I'm not backing up. We can cherry pick whatever information and there's going to be plenty of different accounts. The ones in Wikipedia are the ones I'm using.

Also, as I said, ONE fuck up in ALL history can have terrible consequences. How many people die falling from wind turbines? Even it was many, that can be prevented right? So the solution would be having better security measures.

Many people also die mining the fuel needed for power plants I assume.

My girlfriend's granparents live close to the Fukushima nuclear power station and you don't know what the area and its peole have gone through.

And what to do with nuclear waste? It will remain radioactive for MILLIONS of years? Who says future generations will have the ability to maintain that (increasing) waste under control? It's just a gamble.

Well... that and most countries don't have the space to build power plants the size of Arizona... because there is no way to make much more efficent wind, solar and hydro plants because there is a very finite amount of energy put in one spot.

Photovoltaic energy is only about 25% efficient at the very top end at the moment, there are ways to make it much more efficient. In fact there are more efficiency gains to be had in solar than in any other form of energy as far as I can see.

Except, even with great funding... breakthroughs have been extremly slow and may not come.

The one thing people seem to forget with research is that research is FAAAAR from a given.  Things in labratorys may never and often never are adopted in the mainstream world because there is no way to make it workable outside labs.

Plenty of other stuff just never gets developed.

Photovoltaic energy is only about 25% efficient at the very top end at the moment, there are ways to make it much more efficient. In fact there are more efficiency gains to be had in solar than in any other form of energy as far as I can see.

There have been plenty of progressive gains in the practical efficiency of solar cells over the last decade or so. There will almost certainly continue to be gains.

I'm not commenting on the current economics of PV, I'm just saying that all the people who claim that you can't reduce the amount of land needed because there is only a finite amount of power per area have missed the fact that at the moment we are not able to use all of that power per area.