Which has caused more deaths: anti-vax or anti-nuclear?

Turkey · February 21, 2015, 12:41:37 AM

This arguably biased source states that there were 8,961 vaccine preventable deaths from 2007-2015. We'll call that about 1,125 deaths per year, on average. We're going to fudge numbers in this thread a bit, but it all benefits the anti-vax side, so it's okay.

Now let's talk nuclear power. Surely, nuclear power is incredibly dangerous and must be approached cautiously. Just look at the Fukushima disaster, where a whopping...uh, 1 person died. From stress-related heart problems. And no significant increase in cancer rates. Despite being one of the worst imaginable scenarios for a nuclear disaster, we saw no nuclear-related deaths. It's hard to determine an average number of nuclear-related deaths each year, because it's so low. Forbes estimated around 90 per year. A NASA study predicted that if nuclear power had been adopted in the early 70s, we would have seen about 5,000 nuclear-related deaths since then. That fits the Forbes number pretty well. This NASA study also estimates that had nuclear power not been adopted, and we had simply used coal and natural gas during those 40 years, we would have seen an additional 1.8 million deaths, and another 64 gigatons of carbon in the atmosphere. None of this includes the long-term health effects of coal mining or environmental harm.

That gives us about 45,000 deaths per year on average for not using nuclear power. They also calculate that if we stopped using nuclear power, we'd see another 7 million coal-related deaths, not to mention hundreds more gigatons of carbon released into the atmosphere.

Let's summarize:

Avg. deaths per year
Anti-vax: 1,125
Anti-nuclear: 45,000/yr in the past, 175,000/yr through the next 40 years

The long and short of it is that if you're against nuclear energy, you're an order of magnitude more harmful to the rest of humanity than anti-vaxxers.

February 21, 2015, 12:44:03 AM

"Agree with me or you're harmful to the rest of humanity."

...okay?

Turkey · February 21, 2015, 12:45:44 AM

Quote from: SecondClass on February 21, 2015, 12:44:03 AM

"Agree with me or you're harmful to the rest of humanity."

That's correct.

DAS B00T x2 · February 21, 2015, 01:39:33 AM

Well, seeing as I support nuclear energy and vaccinations, I might be horribly biased here.. but still right.

Isara · February 21, 2015, 06:03:32 AM

I'd rather talk about cold fusion. Other nuclear reactor types have been proven unstable due to human errors, or unpredictable circumstances. However, cold fusion is still small, and mostly theoretical.

Turkey · February 21, 2015, 10:08:09 AM

Quote from: Isara on February 21, 2015, 06:03:32 AM

I'd rather talk about cold fusion. Other nuclear reactor types have been proven unstable due to human errors, or unpredictable circumstances. However, cold fusion is still small, and mostly theoretical.

Cold fusion would be great, but you're right in saying it's only theoretical. I think fission gets a bad rap for the few high, profile disasters that have occurred, but the Fukushima incident is really an endorsement of the safety of nuclear power -- they used old reactors with out of date regulations, had some of the worst conditions applied to it (earthquake and tsunami), and still nobody died. With modern protocols and technology, nuclear is safer than ever.

Mr. Psychologist · February 21, 2015, 11:03:48 AM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 21, 2015, 10:08:09 AM

Quote from: Isara on February 21, 2015, 06:03:32 AM
I'd rather talk about cold fusion. Other nuclear reactor types have been proven unstable due to human errors, or unpredictable circumstances. However, cold fusion is still small, and mostly theoretical.

Cold fusion would be great, but you're right in saying it's only theoretical. I think fission gets a bad rap for the few high, profile disasters that have occurred, but the Fukushima incident is really an endorsement of the safety of nuclear power -- they used old reactors with out of date regulations, had some of the worst conditions applied to it (earthquake and tsunami), and still nobody died. With modern protocols and technology, nuclear is safer than ever.

Isn't it still spewing radioactive water into the ocean though? <.<

Turkey · February 21, 2015, 11:09:22 AM

Not really, they've got it contained and are working on pumping it out and decontamination it. There have been a few leaks, but they're not just pumping it into the ocean to be someone else's problem.

rC · February 21, 2015, 11:26:26 AM

My 4th grade teacher told me that steam hurts the atmosphere, so I'll take his word over the word of some stupid engineer.

The Lord Slide Rule · February 21, 2015, 07:29:52 PM

Quote from: SecondClass on February 21, 2015, 12:44:03 AM

"Agree with me or you're harmful to the rest of humanity."

...okay?

If in disagreeing you completely disregard negative affects that could be prevented by the thing you disagree w/, ye.

The Lord Slide Rule · February 21, 2015, 07:30:49 PM

Quote from: Isara on February 21, 2015, 06:03:32 AM

I'd rather talk about cold fusion. Other nuclear reactor types have been proven unstable due to human errors, or unpredictable circumstances. However, cold fusion is still small, and mostly theoretical.

You'd rather talk empirically unsubstantiated pseudoscience?

Destati · February 22, 2015, 04:11:31 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

aREALgod · February 22, 2015, 05:30:04 PM

I'm all for nuclear power, but my main gripe with it is efficient and safe disposal of the waste. Sure, there may be sites to get rid of it all, but they're not secure enough (at least imo) for the long term and it's not a good idea to be radiating our own backyard. Hopefully one day we can master fusion though, or some other power source.

Turkey · February 22, 2015, 07:23:19 PM

Quote from: aTALLmidget on February 22, 2015, 05:30:04 PM

I'm all for nuclear power, but my main gripe with it is efficient and safe disposal of the waste. Sure, there may be sites to get rid of it all, but they're not secure enough (at least imo) for the long term and it's not a good idea to be radiating our own backyard. Hopefully one day we can master fusion though, or some other power source.

I'd say it's pretty darn secure. Something like 90% of the waste can be reused, and beyond that it's a simple process of sealing it in concrete and burying it. There's an abundance of unused land for such a purpose, and there has never been an security compromise during the transportation and disposal of nuclear waste. We're not radiating anything with it, because the concrete blocks all of the radiation. In fact, a few of inches of water effectively blocks all the radiation, too.

Mad Max · February 22, 2015, 07:27:12 PM

I can't put my finger on it, but I feel like this isn't an equal comparison.

Turkey · February 22, 2015, 07:31:15 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on February 22, 2015, 07:27:12 PM

I can't put my finger on it, but I feel like this isn't an equal comparison.

Of course it's apples to oranges, I just thought it'd be fun to run the numbers.

Saleem · February 23, 2015, 12:37:41 AM

A nuuuuu cheeki breeki iv damke!

Spoiler

Nah I'm cool with nuclear power as long as they stop fucking it up.