Almost 1500 dead in Africa from fluid fossil fuel accidents in this decade.

[NNadir]

I'm quite sure that the count is in no way comprehensive, and I know that we evaluate the "safety" of energy systems it is against the rules to count people killed by any form of fossil fuels, but in my quixotic quest to have these dangerous, filthy fuels banned, I count the deaths anyway.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/12/26/74711/449

Most of the deaths involve pipelines.

We could get Westerners to care about these deaths by declaring the dead radioactive. Otherwise, fat chance.

[Lucky Luciano]

1. That cannot be comprehensive.

I remember a couple years ago when a pipeline explosion in Nigeria caused over 1000 deaths when people had nowhere to go but a drainage ditch - where they all drowned.

[NNadir]

2. I'm sure it's not. There was an Algerian gas liquefaction plant that blew too.

I forget how many people died.

[sharp_stick]

3. Nigeria makes billions off of oil profits

and does absolutely nothing to help it's poor, if not the most corrupt nation on the planet it sure is in the top 5. This complete lack of caring for people basically starving to death drives them to steal gas from poorly designed pipelines and causes these horrific scenes.

I'm sure they under report deaths in a really weak attempt to make it seem not quite as bad as it really is.

[Kagemusha]

4. You do realize people busted a hole in a pipeline in an urban area here?

Why should I count this as an accident any more than the dead from a suicide bombing or a land mine going off? It's an incident of pipeline sabotage that made lots of people flock to the pipeline to collect oil, which subsequently detonated. Your logic that it's the damned fossil fuels' fault is pretty thin.

[NNadir]

5. Actually it isn't thin at all.

People are always talking about putative "nuclear terrorists" for instance, even though such terrorist do not exist. People also talk about transporting nuclear fuels, even though two years of such fuel can be carried on a single truck.

The problem here is very much connected with the mass density of fossil fuels and their transportation, which creates dangerous situations.

Surely you are not here to tell us that all of the people who were killed by these events were the thieves themselves, or are you?

[Kagemusha]

6. Depends which events you refer to as "these" honestly

And I will say that your spin, at least, is indeed very thick. But yeah, when hundreds of people who have damned well heard of other hundreds of people dying when doing the exact same act, do the exact same act, I have to assume that they're motivated by greed. And poverty, certainly, but a poor thief doing life-threatening stealing takes his life into his hands.

You're just acting like it's an inherent defect in the pipeline even though someone sabotaged it first.

[NNadir]

7. I am not spinning anything at all. I am stripping away spin.

I am saying that the energy density of fossil fuels makes them subject to events like this.

I am a proponent of nuclear energy. People advance - with very little technical insight whatsoever by the way - that the possible theft of nuclear materials makes them unacceptably dangerous. Now mind you, there has never been a theft of commercial spent nuclear fuel anywhere on the planet, but still people insist that it is an issue because it "could" happen. I contend that the theft of commercial nuclear fuel is extremely unlikely because of the nature of spent nuclear fuel.

Now people are dying wholesale from the theft of fossil fuels and you are telling me that it doesn't matter because theft is involved. This is nonsense.

The inherent defect in the pipeline is that it exists.

Fossil fuels should be banned. They are unacceptably dangerous.

[Kagemusha]

8. Well I'm glad you came out and said it...

That you think the inherent defect in the pipeline is that it exists. That's what you implied strongly. Such honesty is refreshing.

That said, I tend not to view mere existence as a defect personally, but that's not really my point, my point is that lumping this with industrial accidents may seem a bit broad-brushed.

As for banning fossil fuels... because they're unacceptably dangerous? That seems to be a silly reason. There's a lot of acceptably dangerous things in the world because life is inherently dangerous. Death is the only true peace known to man, but do you see man jumping to embrace it? Well, no. Campfires run a risk of fire breaking out. Electricity can burn your house down. Food can keep you alive, but it can also kill you; you can choke on a hot dog, or be poisoned by salmonella. Some dangers are more within human control than others.

Flocking to a damaged oil pipeline that subsequently goes boom is well within the human control and free will of the people who flocked to it rather than did the intelligent thing, which is to run like hell. I'd be kinder if this was the first or second time this has happened in Nigeria but, clearly, it is not.

[NNadir]

9. Maybe *you* think it's a silly reason to ban fossil fuels, but but there is nothing silly about it.

The question of whether humans are mortal is not a moral question at all since obviously humans are mortal.

That said, it is my moral position that all people living have a responsibility to future generations. I find the libertarian notion that "we're in it for ourselves" objectionable, revolting really.

We cannot eliminate risk but we can minimize risks. If you like to bungee jump off a flag pole on the Empire State Building using frayed bungees, I am hardly persuaded that this a good idea for all humanity. I favor the banning of fossil fuels not because I suppose that doing so will eliminate all risks, but because I want all human beings to enjoy the safest experience of life possible.

The risks of fossil fuel use to eternity are well understood and are the subject of environmentalist conversations throughout the world, just as the risks of cigarette smoking are well understood and are the subject of discussions about pulmonary medicine throughout the world. In general, pulmonary physicians do not band together and announce that they are indifferent to smoking because people who are not killed by lung cancer will eventually die from something else. In the fossil fuel case, entire habitats are being destroyed by climate change. Many of these habitats are critical to the survival of life on earth. Maybe your position is that we shouldn't worry about that since eventually the sun will become a red giant and consume the earth in its entirety, but I am not interested in little fatalistic philosophical absurdities. I am interested in broader ethical questions.

If you to evoke what is and is not silly, I would question whether or not the E&E forum is a wonderful place for you to post. The DU Lounge is a wonderful place to tell jokes.

I favor the banning of fossil fuels, all of them.

[Kagemusha]

10. Who the hell believes fossil fuels can be used to eternity?

I thought they were a limited time only deal anyway.

At any rate, you're making the point that I'm upsetting your applecart and I don't belong on this forum, so I shall leave it to you as you prefer.