----- Original Message -----
From: "Baardwijk, J. van DTO/SLBD/BGM/SVM/SGM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 4:33 AM
Subject: RE: Times have changed, 'green' sells products L3
> > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> > Van: Dan Minette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Verzonden: Sunday, July 15, 2001 11:00 PM
> > Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Onderwerp: Re: Times have changed, 'green' sells products L3
>
> > Further, the fact that is only suppose to reduce the use of fossil fuel
> > fuel is, IMHO, a tacit admission of the problems. Economically viable
> > technologies have made much stronger inroads in 20 years than a few %.
> > Remember, 10% is only 3% better than the US is right now and about 6%
> > better than the Netherlands is right now. Plus, with the present rate
> > of increase in energy consumption in the Netherlands, even more fossil
> > fuels will be used in 2020 than is used now.
>
> True (and not just for The Netherlands), but if we wouldn't get part of
our
> energy from alternative sources, that increase would be even bigger. So,
> basically what we're doing for now is not decreasing the use of fossil
> fuels, but limiting the increase in use.
>
OK, and I'm actually for doing that. But, the west is su
>
>
> There are a few problems with this. You're comparing two things you can't
> compare: people falling off roofs in *Europe*, and people dying in car
> accidents in the *US*. If you want to do it right, you'll have to
calculate
> both rates for either Europe or the US. With calculations based on actual
> data of course, not assumed numbers -- but I'm sure you already realized
> that. :-)
>
Is the European death rate on the highways 100x that of the US? Are you
aguing that 1 in 100,000 is much too high of a figure for death rate per
climbing on the roof?
Yea, I'm making rough guesses. Plus, data for the US is much easier to
obtain than data for Europe on almost anything. But, I can't imagine
European death rates per mile being much more than twice the US.
You can put forth your own WAG...that would be fine. What I don't think is
fine is worring to death about 38 deaths in 30 years and not even
considering the possible requirements for risky actions as part of solar
power.
When risks are orders of magnitude apart, one doesn't have to worry about
the third significant figure to compare risks.
> As long as humans have to work, mistakes will be made, and mistakes will
go
> unnoticed (after all, safety officers too can make mistakes, although it's
> sloppy work if you don't check your equipment before using it). But
anyway,
> I consider it an accepted risk: if you climb on a roof, you know you can
> fall off.
But, if the choice is climb on the roof or have unacceptable performance
from the solar panal, aren't you pretty required to go on the roof?
It's the same as the higher radiation exposure you get when you're
> an airline pilot or a worker in a nuclear power plant: you know the risk,
> and you accepted it when you signed your contract.
But, its a much lower risk. 6 out of every 100,000 people don't die from
radiation exposure every year. Why are higher risks more acceptable than
lower risks. If that were true, then almost half a million Americans would
have died from radiation exposure over the last 30 years.
>If you can't accept the risk that comes with a job, don't apply for the
job.
>
Let me get the arguement straight. It would be better for thousands to die
at the work place than any number to die elsewhere? Industrial safety isn't
important, only personal safety?
> I didn't hold any *person* responsible for any accidents; it's just a
choice
> of words. One could also say that the solar power industry is responsible
> for those 12,500 deaths you mentioned. If they hadn't made solar panels,
no
> one would have to climb on a roof to clean them.
>
But, you appear to refuse to accept nuclear power because of a fear of even
fewer deaths.
Dan M.
