Good on you Martin! one of my cars right now is a Jeep grand Cherokee, 2009, model, big V8 engine, now, it doesnt consume more petrol then a new Volvo XC, etc, since the new Vortex engines, its a fallacy that big cars, SUVs, should be so thirsty. Look at the new Mercs, the 500 amg, bloody hell, 2,3 litres per swedish mile.
as I said, in Europe we drive on 95 and 98, its so clean it cant be any cleaner.

Yeah, flowers are growing out of exhaust pipes .

It might consume the same as Volvo XC (although I find that hard, American cars really have terrible fuel economy), but it's still very very bad, it's hard to get it below 14l/100 kmh with a petrol engine. But yeah in Sweden you can't drive more than 100 km/h on motorways, so that helps a lot (it's a huge difference between constantly driving at 130 km/h or 100 km/h). Since you mentioned AMG Mercs (BTW 500 doesn't even exist ), it's my dream car, the C63 AMG. Clarkson called it an axe murderer with headlights . And yeah, its fuel consumption is also high, it's very bad for the planet, but for what it's worth, I don't drive a lot, usually just 6k km/year. I'm sure I wouldn't go over 10k even with that Merc

Why nobody is drilling for the use of geothermal energy? What are the obstacles for tidal plants? I think these two sources should be the priority, the cleanest and they'd produce enormous amounts of energy, nuclear, coal, gas etc plants could be shut down completely.

It's kind of funny reading this hazard/risk free comments about nuclear power. Only mentioning Fukushima. What about Chernobyl? Is your memory really that short?

Why nobody is drilling for the use of geothermal energy? What are the obstacles for tidal plants? I think these two sources should be the priority, the cleanest and they'd produce enormous amounts of energy, nuclear, coal, gas etc plants could be shut down completely.

It's kind of funny reading this hazard/risk free comments about nuclear power. Only mentioning Fukushima. What about Chernobyl? Is your memory really that short?

Chernobyl caused about 200 casualties, probably less, I can't remember the exact number now. Most of the deaths could have been prevented by administering yodium to the population, as it happened in Japan. So, numbers at hand, Nuclear power caused less than 500 deaths (much less in fact) in 20 years compared to thousands and thousands per year associated with fossil fuels. Numbers can't lie.

Geothermal energy is not available anywhere. It's used where it is. Same with tidal plants: not available anywhere, and they don't produce a constant stream of energy and the energy produced is very expensive. What happens when there's no tide? You shut off your PC and lights? Don't forget that any mean of energy production must be as constant and reliable as possible to be useful (solar, wind and tidal are not constant and reliable).

Chernobyl caused about 200 casualties, probably less, I can't remember the exact number now. Most of the deaths could have been prevented by administering yodium to the population, as it happened in Japan. So, numbers at hand, Nuclear power caused less than 500 deaths (much less in fact) in 20 years compared to thousands and thousands per year associated with fossil fuels. Numbers can't lie.

Lying and denying the suffering of thousand of people is not only immoral, but disgusting. The Union of Concerned Scientists estimate that for the broader population there will be 50,000 excess cancer cases resulting in 25,000 excess cancer deaths. Numbers can`t lie. Check wikipedia amongst other official resources. And we are only talking about Chernobyl. Aren`t you ashamed?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tschernobyl

Lying and denying the suffering of thousand of people is not only immoral, but disgusting. The Union of Concerned Scientists estimate that for the broader population there will be 50,000 excess cancer cases resulting in 25,000 excess cancer deaths. Numbers can`t lie. Check wikipedia amongst other official resources. And we are only talking about Chernobyl. Aren`t you ashamed?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tschernobyl

No, I'm never ashamed of using my brain and stating facts and being truthful. You report an estimation, which is not a scientific fact. There have been several studies showing NO strong correlation between cancer rate in Europe and Chernobyl. You can be as disgusted as you like, but i suggest you to use your time studying instead. It's more productive.

Example:
http://www.sfrp.asso.fr/img/pdf/7-hindie.pdf

Note how the only measurable effect is on Thyroid cancer that is prevented simply by administering jodium as it happened in Japan.

Please next time get your facts straight before insulting people who actually study this stuff.

Quote from: wut on March 14, 2012, 11:59

You're only talking about mortalities, what about thousands of ppl getting cancer, defective babies and children. It's horrible, much worse than dropping dead in a matter of 24h or so (radiation poisoning ain't no picnic either).

There's no study showing correlation between cancer rate in Europe and Chernobyl in the years after the disaster. Cancer rate has stayed the same. Don't forget that the earth is naturally radioactive.

Are you serious?!?

Quote from: velocicarpo on March 14, 2012, 12:33

You really believe what you say, no? Yodium prevents cellular damage under low dose radioation exposure, but is totally useless when we talk about a fallout of the chernobyl category. Only when you are kilometers away maybe. Yodium does only prevent SOME sort of cell damage but is mostly useless for radioation sickness, frying organs, DNA damage and the most forms of cancer occuring after chernobyl. Do you know how many people suffered from that and are still suffering? Do you know how many children had

I believe in scientific facts, and these scientific facts show how there is no strong correlation between cancer rate and Chernobyl in Europe, as much as you would have liked it to be different for your perverse agenda. The study I posted (among many others) shows how many people suffered. Luckily not many.

Quote from: wut on March 14, 2012, 12:34

Are you serious?!?

Yes.

Lol! This is simply not true. No facts here. You are just making a joke of yourself.

Quote from: velocicarpo on March 14, 2012, 12:44

Lol! This is simply not true. No facts here. You are just making a joke of yourself.

I posted the scientific facts. Go tell them it's not true.
http://www.sfrp.asso.fr/img/pdf/7-hindie.pdf

You can call me names as much as you want, it won't change the facts. Sorry.

Here's someone who's also making a joke of himself:
James Lovelock and Nuclear Energy

One of the most remarkable scientists of our time.

I can`t believe that....it is really a shame to have people like that amongst us.

Quote from: velocicarpo on March 14, 2012, 13:05

I can`t believe that....it is really a shame to have people like that amongst us.

Keep insulting me, it will make your arguments stronger.

http://www.greenfacts.org/en/chernobyl/l-2/2-health-effects-chernobyl.htm#2

The international expert group predicts that among the 600 000 persons receiving more significant exposures (liquidators working in 1986�1987, evacuees, and residents of the most �contaminated� areas), the possible increase in cancer mortality due to this radiation exposure might be up to a few per cent. This might eventually represent up to four thousand fatal cancers in addition to the approximately 100 000 fatal cancers to be expected due to all other causes in this population. Among the 5 million persons residing in other �contaminated� areas, the doses are much lower and any projected increases are more speculative, but are expected to make a difference of much less than one per cent in cancer mortality.

The real damage to people in the region, according to the Chernobyl Forum report, is from poverty and mental stress.  �The most significant public health impact of Chernobyl has been on mental health,� says Luisa Vinton, who headed the forum, in the video Living with Chernobyl (2007). �The conclusion we�ve come to is that fear of radiation is a far more important health threat than radiation itself.��  

So many people making jokes of themselves. I find it more of a shame to have people amongst us who resort to insults when they lose an argument so clearly. Have a good day.

Assessing the disaster's effects on human health

Main article: Chernobyl disaster effects


Demonstration on Chernobyl day near WHO in Geneva
An international assessment of the health effects of the Chernobyl accident is contained in a series of reports by the United Nations Scientific Committee of the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR).[105] UNSCEAR was set up as a collaboration between various UN bodies, including the World Health Organisation, after the atomic bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to assess the long-term effects of radiation on human health.
UNSCEAR has conducted 20 years of detailed scientific and epidemiological research on the effects of the Chernobyl accident. Apart from the 57 direct deaths in the accident itself, UNSCEAR predicted in 2005 based on Linear no-threshold model (LNT) that up to 4,000 additional cancer deaths related to the accident would appear "among the 600 000 persons receiving more significant exposures (liquidators working in 1986�87, evacuees, and residents of the most contaminated areas)".[106] Later this number was revised slightly up to 5,000. The number of excess deaths among 5 million people living in the less contaminated areas is estimated at 3,000�5,000. The number of excess cancer deaths worldwide (including all contaminated areas) is approximately 27,000 based on the same LNT.[107]
UNSCEAR now states:
Among the residents of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine, there had been up to the year 2005 more than 6,000 cases of thyroid cancer reported in children and adolescents who were exposed at the time of the accident, and more cases can be expected during the next decades. Notwithstanding the influence of enhanced screening regimes, many of those cancers were most likely caused by radiation exposures shortly after the accident. Apart from this increase, there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure two decades after the accident. There is no scientific evidence of increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality rates or in rates of non-malignant disorders that could be related to radiation exposure. The incidence of leukaemia in the general population, one of the main concerns owing to the shorter time expected between exposure and its occurrence compared with solid cancers, does not appear to be elevated. Although those most highly exposed individuals are at an increased risk of radiation-associated effects, the great majority of the population is not likely to experience serious health consequences as a result of radiation from the Chernobyl accident. Many other health problems have been noted in the populations that are not related to radiation exposure.[108]


Thyroid cancer incidence in children and adolescents from Belarus after the Chernobyl accident.
Yellow: Adults (19�34)
Blue: Adolescents (15�18)
Red: Children (0�14)
However, thyroid cancer is generally treatable.[109] With proper treatment, the five-year survival rate of thyroid cancer is 96%, and 92% after 30 years.[110] UNSCEAR counted 15 deaths from thyroid cancer in the affected population.
In addition, the IAEA states that there has been no increase in the rate of birth defects or abnormalities, or solid cancers (such as lung cancer) corroborating UNSCEAR's assessments.[111] UNSCEAR does also raise the possibility of long term genetic defects, pointing to a doubling of radiation-induced minisatellite mutations among children born in 1994.[112] There is some dispute over the control groups in this study and the long term effects are not clear.
The Chernobyl Forum is a regular meeting of IAEA, other United Nations organizations (FAO, UN-OCHA, UNDP, UNEP, UNSCEAR, WHO, and the World Bank), and the governments of Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine that issues regular scientific assessments of the evidence for health effects of the Chernobyl accident.[113] The Chernobyl Forum concluded that twenty-eight emergency workers ("liquidators") died from acute radiation syndrome including beta burns and 15 patients died from thyroid cancer in the following years, and it roughly estimated that cancer deaths caused by Chernobyl may reach a total of about 4,000 among the 5 million persons residing in the contaminated areas, the report projected cancer mortality "increases of less than one per cent" (~0.3%) on a time span of 80 years, cautioning that this estimate was "speculative" since at this time only a few tens cancer deaths are linked to the Chernobyl disaster.[citation needed] Fred Mettler, a radiation expert at the University of New Mexico, puts this last number at "perhaps" 5000, for a total of 9000 Chernobyl associated fatal cancers, saying "the number is small (representing a few percent) relative to the normal spontaneous risk of cancer, but the numbers are large in absolute terms".[114] The same report outlined studies based in data found in the Russian Registry from 1991 to 1998 that suggested that "of 61,000 Russian workers exposed to an average dose of 107 mSv about 5% of all fatalities that occurred may have been due to radiation exposure."[citation needed]
The same report went into depth about the risks to mental health of exaggerated fears about the effects of radiation:[111]
The designation of the affected population as �victims� rather than �survivors� has led them to perceive themselves as helpless, weak and lacking control over their future. This, in turn, has led either to over cautious behavior and exaggerated health concerns, or to reckless conduct, such as consumption of mushrooms, berries and game from areas still designated as highly contaminated, overuse of alcohol and tobacco, and unprotected promiscuous sexual activity.[115]
Fred Mettler commented that 20 years later:[116]
The population remains largely unsure of what the effects of radiation actually are and retain a sense of foreboding. A number of adolescents and young adults who have been exposed to modest or small amounts of radiation feel that they are somehow fatally flawed and there is no downside to using illicit drugs or having unprotected sex. To reverse such attitudes and behaviors will likely take years although some youth groups have begun programs that have promise.
In addition, disadvantaged children around Chernobyl suffer from health problems that are attributable not only to the Chernobyl accident, but also to the poor state of post-Soviet health systems.[111]
A significant issue relating to problems establishing consistent data to base the analysis of the impact of the Chernobyl accident on the population at large is the social and political changes in the region since 1990. These have had numerous impacts in the administration of health care, on socio-economic stability, and even on the manner in which statistical data is collected. Some of these difficulties are outlined in the report "Cancer Mortality in Russia and Ukraine: Validity, Competing Risks and Cohort Effects",[117] which points out among other things that:
...there is clear evidence of weaknesses in cause-of-death registration, especially among those >70 which has, historically, led to underestimation of cancer mortality especially in rural populations. Against this background, the rapid increase in cancer mortality among the elderly in Russia and Ukraine in the late 1980s and its striking further rise in Ukraine in 1989�1990 seems to be due, in large part, to an increase in completeness of registration of cancer as an underlying (or primary) cause of death. The decline in cancer mortality at older ages in the 1990s, which is particularly striking in Ukraine, seems likely to represent a return to previous approaches to registration.
Another study critical of the Chernobyl Forum report was commissioned by Greenpeace, which asserts that "the most recently published figures indicate that in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine alone the accident could have resulted in an estimated 200,000 additional deaths in the period between 1990 and 2004."[118] The Scientific Secretary of the Chernobyl Forum criticized the report's exclusive reliance on non-peer reviewed locally produced studies (in fact, most of the study's sources are from peer-reviewed journals, including many Western medical journals, or from proceedings of scientific conferences[118]), while Gregory H�rtl (spokesman for the WHO) suggested that the conclusions were motivated by ideology.[119]
The German affiliate of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) argued that more than 10,000 people are today affected by thyroid cancer and 50,000 cases are expected in the future.[120]
Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment is an English translation of the 2007 Russian publication Chernobyl. It was published in 2009 by the New York Academy of Sciences in their Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. It presents an analysis of scientific literature and concludes that medical records between 1986, the year of the accident, and 2004 reflect 985,000 premature deaths as a result of the radioactivity released. The authors suggest that most of the deaths were in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, though others occurred worldwide throughout the many countries that were struck by radioactive fallout from Chernobyl. The literature analysis draws on over 1,000 published titles and over 5,000 internet and printed publications discussing the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster. The authors contend that those publications and papers were written by leading Eastern European authorities and have largely been downplayed or ignored by the IAEA and UNSCEAR.[121] This estimate has however been criticized as exaggerated, lacking a proper scientific base.[122]
Other health problems linked with the Chernobyl disaster include


Graph of Down syndrome cases in Belarus around the time of Chernobyl
Down syndrome (trisomy 21). In West Berlin, Germany, prevalence of Down syndrome (trisomy 21) peaked 9 months following the main fallout.[11, 12][citation needed] Between 1980 and 1986, the birth prevalence of Down syndrome was quite stable (i.e., 1.35�1.59 per 1,000 live births [27�31 cases]).[citation needed] In 1987, 46 cases were diagnosed (prevalence = 2.11 per 1,000 live births). Most of the excess resulted from a cluster of 12 cases among children born in January 1987.[citation needed] The prevalence of Down syndrome in 1988 was 1.77, and in 1989, it reached pre-Chernobyl values. The authors[citation needed] noted that the isolated geographical position of West Berlin before reunification, the free genetic counseling, and complete coverage of the population through one central cytogenetic laboratory support completeness of case ascertainment; in addition, constant culture preparation and analysis protocols ensure a high quality of data.[citation needed]
Chromosomal aberrations. Reports of structural chromosome aberrations in people exposed to fallout in Belarus and other parts of the former Soviet Union, Austria, and Germany argue against a simple dose-response relationship between degree of exposure and incidence of aberrations.[citation needed] These findings are relevant because a close relationship exists between chromosome changes and congenital malformations. Inasmuch as some types of aberration are almost specific for ionizing radiation, researchers use aberrations to assess exposure dose. On the basis of current coefficients, however, it is not certain that the calculated individual exposure doses resulting from fallout would not induce measurable rates of chromosome aberrations.[citation needed]
Neural tube defects (NTDs) in Turkey. During the embryonic phase of fetal development, the neural tube differentiates into the brain and spinal cord (i.e., collectively forming the central nervous system). Chemical or physical interactions with this process can cause NTDs. Common features of this class of malformations are more or less extended fissures, often accompanied by consecutive dislocation of central nervous system (CNS) tissue. NTDs include spina bifida occulta and aperta, encephalocele, and � in the extreme case � anencephaly. The first evidence in support of a possible association between CNS malformations and fallout from Chernobyl was published by Akar et al.. in 1988.[citation needed] The Mustafakemalpasa State Hospital, Bursa region, covers a population of approximately 90,000. Investigators have documented the prevalence of malformations since 1983.[citation needed] The prevalence of NTDs was 1.7 to 9.2 per 1,000 births, but during the first 6 months of 1987 increased to 20 per 1,000 (12 cases). The excess was most pronounced for the subgroup of anencephalics, in which prevalence increased 5-fold (i.e., 10 per 1,000 [6 cases]). In the consecutive months that followed (i.e., July�December 1987), the prevalence decreased again (1.3 per 1,000 for all NTDs, 0.6 per 1,000 for anencephaly), and it reached pre-Chernobyl levels during the first half of 1988 (all NTDs: 0.6 per 1,000; anencephaly: 0.2 per 1,000). This initial report was supported by several similar findings in observational studies from different regions of Turkey.[citation needed]

And to really sum it up:
http://www.the9billion.com/2011/03/24/death-rate-from-nuclear-power-vs-coal

Seth Godin recently posted this simplified chart, from an altogether more complicated one. He maintains that this is a simple yet non-exaggerated version of the complicated one. The point is that for each person killed by nuclear power generation, 4,000 die from coal. This is adjusted for how much power is produced by each method of power generation.

Numbers can't lie, adjustments can.

Deaths per watt? That's a really disgusting joke.

Next thing we hear is war deaths or crime deaths adjusted by the money gained. Deaths per dollar.

Why a joke?! You need to produce X energy to satisfy the needs of a certain country, if you produce it using nuclear power, you can expect a certain number of deaths, if you produce it using coal you can expect 4.000 times more people DEAD. What will you choose?

You always have the option of turning off your PC and live in a cave without electricity. Please try to be logical and not hysterical.

Oh man! this is getting heavy!  all this because some OP, wishes the oil price to escalde?  KInow the biggest killer on earth? anybody?  I will tell you, FOOD, and ofcourse the wrong food.
According to all health authorities, food, kill more people on a global scale then alcohol, smoking cars, etc, put together.

have a big-Mac and chips, very healthy.

BTW, Im not joking.

Gah, I feel like a no-sayer now
It looks like hamburgers are not that bad. Give a look at this:
http://www.laleva.org/eng/2012/03/world_renown_heart_surgeon_speaks_out_on_what_really_causes_heart_disease.html

But I need to research more on this, I'm getting mixed information.

Gah, I feel like a no-sayer now
It looks like hamburgers are not that bad. Give a look at this:
http://www.laleva.org/eng/2012/03/world_renown_heart_surgeon_speaks_out_on_what_really_causes_heart_disease.html

This is a link to a conspiracy theory website. And your first source was simply a powerpoint presentation. I expect a link to infowars.com to pop up here any minute now...