Coal has killed more than WW2 since 1970

[eclipsenow]

Hi all,
just running some extrapolations from recent studies backwards I've realised coal really is a monster!

Let’s not forget that coal, oil and gas particulates kill about 2.6 million people per year worldwide. That’s over 7000 people a day, or nearly 2 Chernobyl’s a day! (See Footnote 1)
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2014/air-pollution/en/

Classic George Monbiot quote:

“….when coal goes right it kills more people than nuclear power does when it goes wrong. It kills more people every week than nuclear power has in its entire history. And that’s before we take climate change into account.”
http://www.monbiot.com/2012/10/09/the-heart-of-the-matter/

Coal kills 30,000 Americans a year
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs313/en/

Existing nuclear power in prevents the burning of DEADLY coal, it has already saved 1.8 million lives in America.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...o-fossil-fuels-may-save-up-to-7-million-more/

How many lives would have been saved if we had switched from coal to nuclear power by 1970? I roughly halved the death rate till the 2000’s to account for world population growth and world coal use across the 1970 to 2000 period, and then added the ‘normal’ 2.6million deaths per year from 2000 onwards. By the end of 2015, my very rough, back-of-the-envelope guess is that we could have saved 78 million lives, or more people than were killed in World War 2!

 

[SkyWriting]

[QUOTE="eclipsenow, post: 68501779, member: 274355"Let’s not forget that coal, oil and gas particulates kill about 2.6 million people per year worldwide. That’s over 7000 people a day, or nearly 2 Chernobyl’s a day! (See Footnote 1)
[/QUOTE]

1 in 4 people do not have access to electricity. Now imagine their heating and cooking problems
without coal. I'd say that the death rates would increase in that scenario too.

 

[juvenissun]

Hi all,
just running some extrapolations from recent studies backwards I've realised coal really is a monster!

Let’s not forget that coal, oil and gas particulates kill about 2.6 million people per year worldwide. That’s over 7000 people a day, or nearly 2 Chernobyl’s a day! (See Footnote 1)
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2014/air-pollution/en/

These are all statistics for politicians. No scientific value at all.
Milk may have killed hundreds of thousands per year. Water may have done the same terrible things.

 

[SkyWriting]

These are all statistics for politicians. No scientific value at all.
Milk may have killed hundreds of thousands per year. Water may have done the same terrible things.

Trains are evil.

 

[eclipsenow]

1 in 4 people do not have access to electricity. Now imagine their heating and cooking problems
without coal. I'd say that the death rates would increase in that scenario too.

They do! The same link explains that the deaths from indoor woodsmoke in poor countries is actually higher than coal because they are so poor, they cook inside badly ventilated mud huts and the smoke causes similar health problems, just in greater numbers. But you want them to coal which causes climate change and kills? Now that we have nuclear power that is intrinsically, inherently safe AND potentially cheaper than coal (half the retail price of coal if we go with Thorcon, see video here), we should shoot straight for that. Or do you want to move them to coal and keep them poor? If you want the REAL cost of coal you have to double it.

“Although it is difficult to assign a cost to these numbers, estimates have suggested a 10% increase in health care costs in countries where coal makes up a significant fraction of the energy mix, like the U.S. and Europe (NAS 2010; Cohen et al., 2005; Pope et al., 2002). These additional health costs begin to rival the total energy costs on an annual basis for the U.S. given that health care costs top $2.6 trillion, and electricity costs only exceed about $400 billion. Another way to describe this human health energy fee is that it costs about 2,000 lives per year to keep the lights on in Beijing but only about 200 lives to keep them on in New York.

Guess that’s just the cost of doing business…”​

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

 

[eclipsenow]

These are all statistics for politicians. No scientific value at all.
Milk may have killed hundreds of thousands per year. Water may have done the same terrible things.

What on earth are you saying: that the best, peer-reviewed evidence we have about coal's health effects should just be ignored?

Maybe this graphic will help.

 

[KWCrazy]

If so it seems to be a party that has as an article of faith loving THE deadliest form of electricity we've ever invented, and an article of faith that members must hate peer-reviewed health and climate science.

 

[eclipsenow]

Ha haarrrrgh!! I like the cut of y'er jib.
(Sorry, I have to practice to be ready for International Talk Like a Pirate Day).

 

[juvenissun]

What on earth are you saying: that the best, peer-reviewed evidence we have about coal's health effects should just be ignored? Let me guess: are you Republican? Tea-party? If so it seems to be a party that has as an article of faith loving THE deadliest form of electricity we've ever invented, and an article of faith that members must hate peer-reviewed health and climate science.

Maybe pictures will help?

I do believe the researches and the data are real. What I said is that if a similar way is used to study ANY other thing human used in modern life, the data would be similar. Everything kills. It is easy to name one which might have killed more than using coal: pesticides used for your food. Are you going to promote a ban of using pesticide?

So, what does that say about the studies you referred? NOTHING but propaganda.

 

[eclipsenow]

I do believe the researches and the data are real. What I said is that if a similar way is used to study ANY other thing human used in modern life, the data would be similar. Everything kills. It is easy to name one which might have killed more than using coal: pesticides used for your food. Are you going to promote a ban of using pesticide?

So, what does that say about the studies you referred? NOTHING but propaganda.

Milk doesn't kill the same way coal does.
Nuclear doesn't kill the same way coal does.
Coal kills so many people it is worth about 650 Chernobyl's, and that's based on a high estimate of deaths from Chernobyl. In reality, Chernobyl may not kill that many people at all!
I'm addressing everyone's fear of nuclear power with cold hard statistics. I don't know what you're doing? Everything kills? Really? Like what? Got statistics to prove milk kills as many people as coal? What I'm doing is called reading science. You're doing propaganda because you're reacting with some kind of 'red's under the bed' paranoia against moving away from coal. You interpret this data as communist or greenie conspiracies or propaganda, and feel afraid. But why? There is a better, cheaper alternative than coal!

 

[juvenissun]

Milk doesn't kill the same way coal does.
Nuclear doesn't kill the same way coal does.
Coal kills so many people it is worth about 650 Chernobyl's, and that's based on a high estimate of deaths from Chernobyl. In reality, Chernobyl may not kill that many people at all!
I'm addressing everyone's fear of nuclear power with cold hard statistics. I don't know what you're doing? Everything kills? Really? Like what? Got statistics to prove milk kills as many people as coal? What I'm doing is called reading science. You're doing propaganda because you're reacting with some kind of 'red's under the bed' paranoia against moving away from coal. You interpret this data as communist or greenie conspiracies or propaganda, and feel afraid. But why? There is a better, cheaper alternative than coal!

Milk, pure and clean milk, will upset the stomach of some people. An upset stomach may cause other health related issues for part of those people. Those health related issues may cause the death of some of those people affected by drinking milk. So, drinking milk DOES kill. Needless to say that spoiled milk may be poisonous in some way and may cause more death.

Coal kills in a similar manner.

Yes, I am talking about SCIENCE. And science says: everything, includes fresh water, could be the original cause of death.

 

[freezerman2000]

What on earth are you saying: that the best, peer-reviewed evidence we have about coal's health effects should just be ignored? Let me guess: are you Republican? Tea-party? If so it seems to be a party that has as an article of faith loving THE deadliest form of electricity we've ever invented, and an article of faith that members must hate peer-reviewed health and climate science.

Maybe pictures will help?

 

[eclipsenow]

Milk, pure and clean milk, will upset the stomach of some people. An upset stomach may cause other health related issues for part of those people. Those health related issues may cause the death of some of those people affected by drinking milk. So, drinking milk DOES kill. Needless to say that spoiled milk may be poisonous in some way and may cause more death.

Coal kills in a similar manner.

Yes, I am talking about SCIENCE. And science says: everything, includes fresh water, could be the original cause of death.

Do you have peer-reviewed medical statistics for your milk claims?

 

[eclipsenow]

Apologies: I over-reacted. I have changed the tone of that post.

 

[freezerman2000]

Thanks..much appreciated!

 

[juvenissun]

Do you have peer-reviewed medical statistics for your milk claims?

No.

 

[juvenissun]

There is a better, cheaper alternative than coal!

That kills too.

 

[eclipsenow]

That kills too.

It sure has in the past, but moving forward I'm not sure that it ever will again. But if the worst nuclear disaster in history only killed a few hundred people, and the 4000 people we say it "will kill" only comes from mathematical projections based on the Linear No-Threshold model of radiation exposure that is highly debated in peer-reviewed medicine right now, then don't you think we should move to that?

Remember, more people have died falling off rooftops installing solar panels and falling off wind turbines than nuclear power has killed!

If statistics show that something kills 5000 times more people than something else that can do the same job better and cheaper, do you think we should pass laws moving us to that next product (or combination of products?) Basically, do you think we should wean off fossil fuels because they kill thousands more people than the alternatives (wind, solar, and nuclear), they change the climate, they destroy landscapes AND they are ultimately going to RUN OUT! Why not move to safe, easy to mass-produce Molten Salt Reactors right now and stop all these problems?

 

[Strathos]

That kills too.

But much less, which I believe is his point.

 

[juvenissun]

If statistics show that something kills 5000 times more people than something else that can do the same job better and cheaper, do you think we should pass laws moving us to that next product (or combination of products?) Basically, do you think we should wean off fossil fuels because they kill thousands more people than the alternatives (wind, solar, and nuclear), they change the climate, they destroy landscapes AND they are ultimately going to RUN OUT! Why not move to safe, easy to mass-produce Molten Salt Reactors right now and stop all these problems?

It depends. $$$ is a big issue. Coal may kill a starved person in 25 years. But he and his family will die in a few weeks without $$$ from the coal industry.