Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

madokie

(51,076 posts)
17. Most of those 7 million deaths you throw out there
Tue Aug 11, 2015, 05:10 AM
Aug 2015

are deaths due to improperly used or non existent cooking and heating apparatus's in third world countries. Where people heat with open fires and cook over open flames. Light their homes or huts, whichever you want to call them, with candles and oil burning lamps, all unvented. If you're concerned with those deaths then you need to get off your ass and help in providing them with the technology and stoves, lighting etc that won't kill them, not use it as an argument if nuclear is safe or not. Mr David Jones

If nuclear energy proponents would be honest in having a discussion on the deaths due to the mining, processing, accidents etc of nuclear energy then we could have an ear to listen, but until then all I hear is denial. Nuclear kills just as sure as a bullet, its just a slower more painful death, one that is easy to hide if one has a tendency or a want to do such a thing. I'm looking at you mr Jones and mr Baggins
Have a good day, I plan too

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Future Of Nuclear Industry Takes Yet Another Hit bananas Jul 2015 #1
As I've said a number of times, I was told the same thing 40 years ago by experts in the field. bananas Jul 2015 #2
The only people who delude themselves that nukes can ever be safe are those in the industry Cleita Jul 2015 #3
A couple corrections/clarifications FBaggins Jul 2015 #4
Are these the ones that use nuclear waste to operate? lonestarnot Jul 2015 #5
Yes, and others. nt bananas Jul 2015 #6
I hate to ask anti-nukes questions involving logic, but... NNadir Jul 2015 #7
It's always "worth" improving safety FBaggins Jul 2015 #8
That would depend on what you make "safer..." NNadir Jul 2015 #9
Most of those 7 million deaths you throw out there madokie Aug 2015 #17
The ability to make this type of reactor meet minimum safety standards isn't yet achieved. kristopher Jul 2015 #10
Your timeline is off FBaggins Jul 2015 #11
No, my timeline isn't off - it isn't mine. kristopher Jul 2015 #12
Yes it is (both off... and yours) FBaggins Aug 2015 #13
You are quite the character kristopher Aug 2015 #14
Sigh. Can't be bothered to actually read the report that you claim you're using as a source? FBaggins Aug 2015 #15
Exactly as I expected - you are misdefining "prototype" kristopher Aug 2015 #16
Exactly as I expected - you're trying to spin away from the context FBaggins Aug 2015 #19
ROFLMAO kristopher Aug 2015 #21
Your post #10 is the one in question - not #14 FBaggins Aug 2015 #22
Get a life (and a clue) Bags. kristopher Aug 2015 #23
Only one phase of nuclear energy is relatively clean, producing the electricity. madokie Aug 2015 #18
Sorry... that's nonsense. FBaggins Aug 2015 #20
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Next-generation nuclear r...»Reply #17