> -----Original Message----- > From: TimTyler [mailto:[email protected]] > > Uh huh. So what? Here's the source vs deaths/trillionKWhr chart: > > > Coal – global 100,000 (50% global electricity) > Coal – China 170,000 (75% China’s electricity) > Coal – U.S. 10,000 (44% U.S. electricity) > Oil 36,000 (36% of energy, 8% of electricity) > Natural Gas 4,000 (20% global electricity) > Biofuel/Biomass 24,000 (21% global energy) > Solar (rooftop) 440 (< 1% global electricity) > Wind 150 (~ 1% global electricity) > Hydro – global 1,400 (15% global electricity) > Hydro – U.S. 0.01 (7% U.S. electricity) > Nuclear – global 90 (17% global electricity w/Chern&Fukush) > Nuclear – U.S. 0.01 (19% U.S. electricity) > > Source: > https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint- > a-price-always-paid/ > > Nuclear power is still much safer that solar and wind (its nearest competitors > in safety, neither of which generate much electricity). If you are against > nuclear power, you are pro-killing people, ISTM. To reiterate, the problem > with deploying nuclear power it not its safety record, which is generally > excellent. It is popular opposition. > People support and vote for more dangerous technologies. > Environmental activism is a significant part of the problem, ISTM. The > resulting deaths appear to be largely the responsibility of vocal > environmentalists. Precaution kills. > -- >
Have to be careful about where the numbers come from as they are always skewed one way or another. Example: Yearly deaths in US by guns: Guns: 19 Bullets: 32,000 Akin to Forbes' number: Nuclear: 90 Cancer/birth defects caused by nuclear: (???) Raw "scores" don't tell the whole story, simple numbers are a compressed view that can be decompressed in various ways. While I agree with coal's safety issues and death cost nuclear is sadly underexaggerated, Fukushima being the glaring example (which you are ignoring?). I'm against nuclear in its current implementation for that reason, the potential for accidents, until it's truly reset, i.e. shut unsafe plants like those built on fault lines and Tsunami zones? Being pro or con something is a fuzzy line. It's good that we still have a choice before nuclear is ready for further deployment. The opportunity to choose is good. Cautionary opposition needs to be listened to and incorporated instead of ignored and discouraged since who's lives are getting changed anyway? When you look at computer intelligence take this example: Microsoft Windows share of desktop operating system deployment is enormous. The dependency on it is widespread. In the latest Windows 10 incantation, Cortana the AI assistant, is enabled by default with no easy way to disable for a typical user. This is how things are getting spoon fed, no choices allowed, that's what I fear with AGI. But should we just go all-in and assume things will get fixed? Assume a few accidents will occur since people die either way? AGI may be on the level of nuclear where accidental damage could last thousands of years and some organizations reap the rewards but avoid responsibility. So we should look at safety precautions and protocols and backup plans. In most industries there is a small percentage of resources rigidly devoted to that; chemical, biological, electrical, etc.. Why is there NONE for software/internet intelligence? Because we ARE currently going all-in, white-knuckled, no looking back. Why? Is it delusional? Or is checking for delusion anti-science? John ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
