Are windfarms more dangerous than nuclear power?

[Oerdin]

I recently read that the number of deaths worldwide from windmills is 52. Deaths at Chernobyl were supposedly around 50, plus two people in an accident in Japan. So the wind industry has matched nuclear's total accident record in 20 years while producing not even 1% as much power & at only 10 times the cost. :crazy:

[metapunditedgy]

1. Misleading statistics, perhaps? n/t

[Dr.Phool]

19. Misleading?

Quite an understatement.

How about pure, unadulterated bullshit?

[tabatha]

2. Where do spent windmills have to be sequestered?

How much soil around windmills was poisoned as happened at Chernobyl.

Really stooooooooooooooooopid post.

[Raster]

5. And the toxic waste from windmills lasts FOREVER!

Oh wait, there is no toxic waste...

[ZombieHorde]

3. What is the windmill to nuclear plant ratio?

How many people have gotten cancer from the windmill accidents?

What is the waste from windmills like?

[Vincardog]

4. Where did you read that?

[jwirr]

6. 50 deaths at Chernobyl? That may be immediate deaths but it does

not count those who have died of exposure to fall out over the following years. My grandchildren and their parents were in Germany when that happened and they are all being watched for any problems. I would also be interested in how windfarm deaths occurred.

[napi21]

7. What were the "windmill deaths" from ? Other than construction accidents,

I'm having a hard time thinking of how they could cause a death...unless you are talking about birds. I suspect more birds are killed by being sucked into airplane engines than whacked by a windmill blade.

[kristopher]

13. It includes a lot of traffic accidents related to moving them

or people gawking at them on the highways. I forget exactly but it may be about half the total are due to traffic accidents.

[nebenaube]

16. well...

They can and do throw off huge chunks of ice. Not to mention they are loud, cause major vibrations that are often out of synch with adjacent windmills causing headaches, sleep deprivation and this really annoying flicker as the sun sets. I guess they are perfect if you don't own and live on the land where they are installed.

[kristopher]

21. What do you know about that...

Survey data shows that people generally like living around the wind farms. An interesting fact is that there is no correlation between the distance someone lives from wind farm and how much they like or dislike it. The dislike is usually left over from a stance opposing the turbines before they get built. This translates to complaints once they are built from the same people didn't want them to be built. Pretty typical human behavior, I'd say.

Couple that with a study that found homes with a view of wind farms sell better than comparable homes without such a view, and you'd be hard pressed to actually convince people wind farms are all that bad to live around.

[madokie]

30. right out my window here is an eighty foot tower that used to have a 5 kw turbine on it

When it was up there turning in the wind I used to lay at night sometimes and count the pro-nukies jump over it in my sleep. Actually I found the noise it made to be rather soothing and I miss it.

[MrModerate]

8. I have to believe that the 52 is the number of construction workers . . .

killed due to site accidents on all the world's windmills. If you throw in the construction accidents at all nuke sites, I'm sure it's in the hundreds.

Also, if a windmill falls over, it doesn't kill everything a couple of hundred miles downwind -- and you can safely approach the site to clean it up in substantially less than 50,000 years.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm actually more pro-nuke than anti-. I just don't think we should try to fool ourselves that nukes are anything remotely approaching risk-free.

[NOW tense]

9. Maybe they create more wind too.

:Humor Attempt:

[kristopher]

10. 50?

This illustrates the range where discussion is taking place; read for yourself:

Chernobyl, Ukraine — A new Greenpeace report has revealed that the full consequences of the Chernobyl disaster could top a quarter of a million cancer cases and nearly 100,000 fatal cancers.
Our report involved 52 respected scientists and includes information never before published in English. It challenges the UN International Atomic Energy Agency Chernobyl Forum report, which predicted 4,000 additional deaths attributable to the accident as a gross simplification of the real breadth of human suffering.

The new data, based on Belarus national cancer statistics, predicts approximately 270,000 cancers and 93,000 fatal cancer cases caused by Chernobyl. The report also concludes that on the basis of demographic data, during the last 15 years, 60,000 people have additionally died in Russia because of the Chernobyl accident, and estimates of the total death toll for the Ukraine and Belarus could reach another 140,000.

The report also looks into the ongoing health impacts of Chernobyl and concludes that radiation from the disaster has had a devastating effect on survivors; damaging immune and endocrine systems, leading to accelerated ageing, cardiovascular and blood illnesses, psychological illnesses, chromosomal aberrations and an increase in foetal deformations.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/chernobyl-deaths-180406#

Knowing the range of Iraqi deaths in Iraq and the methods behind how those various numbers were derived, I tend to believe the higher range is at least, if not more probable than the lower. In any case 50 isn't even in the ballpark.

[tabatha]

14. What does the ^ mean in your sig line?

Power?

[kristopher]

15. yes.

[hornblast]

11. Many more died due to Chernobyl. This is FUD.

FUD, as in Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. For example, the oil and auto industries don't want any effects on climate or personal health linked to cars or petroleum. But wind farms, wind farms cause cancer, horrid noise pollution in a 7,000 mile radius, and tickle your left big toe.

No, seriously, it tickles your left big toe. Assuming you've not been amputated.

Yeah.

This is FUD. Think critically, and you can see right through it.

[ConcernedCanuk]

12. NO

.
.
.

[Chulanowa]

17. That's the silliest thing I've ever heard

Pardon the joke, but I think you're tilting at windmills here

[Dr.Phool]

18. Another Hit and Run Bullshit post.

Thousands died at Chernobyl in the immediate aftermath, just trying to contain the disaster. And many more in the surrounding area later.

[Oerdin]

20. Actually

According to wiki 57 died due to Chernobyl and there were approximately 4000 cancer cases attributable to it most of them nonfatal. That is the single worst case and was the direct result of the Soviets ignoring safety warnings and their own laws. Clearly on a per megawatt output basis nuclear power is the safest in the world. Do the math.

[kristopher]

22. You do the math

The rest of us will be out here rebuilding the grid, erecting wind turbines along with building solar arrays, geothermal plants and electric vehicles.

[Dr.Phool]

23. And, we can store the waste in your backyard?

And Nuclear is also the most expensive power in the world. Don't get me started on that part. I live in Florida, where they just allowed Progress Energy to increase every customers bill by 25%, starting this month, so that they MIGHT build 2 nukes 10 years from now.

And, I've read first-hand reports about the on site carnage at Chernobyl. Just send people in, and never expect them to come out again. A lot of prison labor. And certain ethic groups.

And Wiki is about as reputable a source for controversial subjects as my balls.

[Oerdin]

25. Recycling is the answer.

There is virtually no waste (less then 2%) provided people recycle nuclear material the way France already does and the way Japan will start doing next year. For the absolutely massive amounts of electricity it produces there simply is no better way.

[Javaman]

34. oh lord, I love these posts...

you come on and put up an OP basically making a totally bizarre assertion, then come back later in the thread pimping nuclear energy.

damn dude, you have to do better than that.

do you even know what nuclear waste consists of?

everyone thinks it's just the spent rods. It's oh so much more than that. Clothing, equipment, textiles, building materials, etc. The list goes on and on. And all that gets chopped down and put into barrels and other containment vessels. None of which can be "recycled". It's there for at least 1 million years.

Also, did you know that the salt cavern in New Mexico that is slated to take all this waste is already full? No physically as of yet, but with stuff that has yet to collected from around the nation. So then what? where do we put the overflow?

Please check your facts before you start your bait and switch posts.

Sigh.

[shraby]

24. Personally, I kind of like to watch the windmills..

sorta like watching the fish in an aquarium.

[kirby]

26. Lets call it Don Quixote Syndrome or DQS. n/t

[CollegeStudent01]

27. That sounds misleading

It's probably deaths related to constructing and building them. Wind mills that go rogue are pretty rare, and I've see videos of those but never heard of anybody dying.

[Oerdin]

28. As previously stated.

Sometimes ice builds up on the blades and then breaks free hitting people, in high winds sometimes they fall over, and sometimes strikes cause the blades to break and go flying. All in all not very common but the death toll clearly shows it does happen and is much more common per megawatt of output then the alternative power sources. Don't get me wrong I do think wind has a future but we need massive amounts of electricity especially if we move towards electric cars and/or plug in hybrids and that means we need nuclear.

There are no more rivers to dam, we can't use fossil fuels because their pollution causes climate change, while solar is even less viable then wind. Geothermal only works in certain places. Nuclear is our answer for massive nongreen house gas producing electricity 24 hours a day/7 days a week.

[daggahead]

32. Well, then that sounds more like a problem with ...

... supervision of windmills during bad weather. The only wind farm I've been to is in rural Michigan. If the blades flew off, the worst thing that may happen is a farmer riding his/her tractor may get hit with a falling blade. Other than that, nothing more than perhaps a damaged tree or a hole in the soil.

The wind farm I visited could also stop the turbine should snow/ice accumulate on the blades. That is the supervision part that may be missing from other farms.

Still, when you consider the amount of energy that is put into mining uranium, shipping it, and then disposing of it properly, nuclear energy is not all that efficient. Insurance companies won't write policies for new nuclear plants because there is too much risk.

[Enthusiast]

29. Sounds like a Limbaughism. nt

[jpak]

31. Chernobyl cancer deaths = 4000+

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

Chernobyl: the true scale of the accident


5 SEPTEMBER 2005 | GENEVA -- A total of up to 4000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (NPP) accident nearly 20 years ago, an international team of more than 100 scientists has concluded.

As of mid-2005, however, fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster, almost all being highly exposed rescue workers, many who died within months of the accident but others who died as late as 2004.

The new numbers are presented in a landmark digest report, “Chernobyl’s Legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts,” just released by the Chernobyl Forum. The digest, based on a three-volume, 600-page report and incorporating the work of hundreds of scientists, economists and health experts, assesses the 20-year impact of the largest nuclear accident in history. The Forum is made up of 8 UN specialized agencies, including the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN-OCHA), United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), and the World Bank, as well as the governments of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine.

“This compilation of the latest research can help to settle the outstanding questions about how much death, disease and economic fallout really resulted from the Chernobyl accident,” explains Dr. Burton Bennett, chairman of the Chernobyl Forum and an authority on radiation effects. “The governments of the three most-affected countries have realized that they need to find a clear way forward, and that progress must be based on a sound consensus about environmental, health and economic consequences and some good advice and support from the international community.”

<more>

Thousands of uranium miners, millers and enrichment plant workers world-wide have died of cancer from exposure to radon, uranium ore, uranium hexafluoride.

The true death toll associated with nuclear power will not be known until the last atom of fission products have decayed away and that will take thousands of years.

New nuclear power is MORE expensive than wind power.

The OP is a crock 'o shit.

:puke:

[GreenPartyVoter]

33. Thank you for posting some facts.

[Barrett808]

35. That's not counting the "rectifiers" -- a million people brought in for the cleanup

They experienced very high rates of various radiation sicknesses, but the Soviet Union routinely labelled their conditions "not related to radiation" and denied treatment. (Chernousenko, Chernobyl, Insight from the Inside, http://www.ratical.org/radiation/Chernobyl/ChernobylIftI.html)

Chernobyl was truly one of the great horrors of industrial civilization.

[Not Sure]

36. I have just one question

Is it wrong for my initial reaction to this OP to be uncontrollable laughter?

[NNadir]

37. You like to live dangerously, don't you? Take it from and old hand, religions don't brook

conflict too well.

[Oerdin]

38. Yeah

I know NN but I wanted to through a few facts at the zealots. ;)

[conscious evolution]

42. Show us some facts then

and not nuclear industry talking points.

[jpak]

43. Your religious dogma is...

:rofl:

[Fledermaus]

39. 22 years on, Welsh farms still under Chernobyl shadow

UP to 359 Welsh farms are still operating under restrictions imposed in the wake of Chernobyl, more than two decades after the Soviet nuclear plant went into meltdown.

The Food Standards Agency Wales revealed the figure before today’s 22nd anniversary of the largest nuclear accident in history.

Upland farms in Wales were caught out by unfortunate circumstances in the wake of the disaster. Heavy rain washed radioactive material from clouds onto fields.

The radiation is absorbed from the soil by plants, which are then eaten by sheep.

For the hundreds of Welsh farmers still living with Chernobyl’s legacy, the restrictions mean their animals are only allowed to enter the food chain after rigorous safety tests.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2008/04/26/22-years-on-welsh-farms-still-under-chernobyl-shadow-91466-20822842/

[Fledermaus]

40. UK sheep above radioactive safety limits due to Chernobyl

By Ahmed ElAmin, 12-Apr-2006
Related topics: Quality & Safety

The radioactive fallout from the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident means sheep at 374 farms in the UK are still restricted from entering the food chain.

The UK's food regulator yesterday published three reports showing that sheep at the farms in Cumbria, Scotland and Wales still contain levels of radioactivity above safety limits.

the Food Standards Agency (FSA) is responsible for ensuring food safety by preventing products with unacceptable levels of radioactivity from entering the supply chain.

http://www.foodproductiondaily.com/Quality-Safety/UK-sheep-above-radioactive-safety-limits-due-to-Chernobyl

[Fledermaus]

41. Chernobyl legacy lingers on ...

11 May 2000

Levels of radioactivity after the explosion of Chernobyl's reactor No 4 are still unexpectedly high - and will remain so for another fifty years - at least 100 times longer than anticipated, it is reported in Nature, out today.

"By looking at the levels of radioactivity of fish in lakes in Cumbria and Norway, we have found that levels of one particular element, radioactive caesium, are still unexpectedly high," says Dr Jim Smith, from the Centre of Ecology and Hydrology, team leader of the international research project.

"During the first five years after Chernobyl, concentrations of radioactive caesium in most foodstuffs and water decreased by a factor of ten, but in the last few years they have changed very little. The environment is not cleaning itself of the pollution at a rate we previously thought - in fact as time goes on after the explosion, it is taking longer for the levels of radioactivity to reduce.

"Whilst this contamination represents only a small health risk to consumers, it means that restrictions on foodstuffs, both in the UK and former Soviet Union, will need to remain in place for much longer than originally anticipated."

http://www.nerc.ac.uk/press/releases/2000/08-chernobyl.asp

[hunter]

44. Twenty years from now...

... the wind farms we are building today are going to look a lot like the wind farms we built twenty years ago. Many of them will be broken and abandoned.

Meanwhile the nuclear plants will be humming along without major incident consistently producing electricity day in and day out.

[daggahead]

46. Wind energy is merely a step toward sustainability ...

... who knows what technology may come in the next 20 years that will replace it and meet all of our needs at low cost? We simply do not know right now.

Existing nuclear plants do simply hum along. They need to be fed uranium every 12 - 18 months, if not sooner.

[TheWraith]

45. You might want to recheck your statistics.

One, I have no idea where the figure for windmill deaths came from. I suspect, though, that any deaths associated with them are most likely either suicides or construction accidents.

Two, the per-kilowatt-hour cost of wind power is roughly competitive with nuclear power: 4 cents per KWh versus about 3.8 for nuclear.

[Oerdin]

47. Not what we're talking about.

We're talking about the number of human deaths per megawatt of power produced. That clearly shows nuclear is safer then wind. As I said before wind has its place but the demonization of nuclear power by people who really are uneducated on this subject need to stop.

[JohnWxy]

48. care to provide a link? or does your ass have a url?

[JohnWxy]

49. 10 times the cost??? provide source/s for this statement.