🚀 go-pugleaf

"Steve Spence" <sspence@webconx.com> wrote in message
news:yIB%4.115736$R4.705059@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com...
> how many people die shingling roofs? maybe we should stop shingling?

Steve, did you actually read my post below, or are you trolling?  May I
excerpt?

"Labour statistics and common sense tell us that some occupations are
riskier than others, and I have NO objection to the existence of these jobs,
assuming all applicable standards are met."

"But if you start installing PV panels en masse across the country, some
people will die as a result.  That's a fact.  It's quite possible that more
deaths will result than those due to other energy technologies, such as gas
or nuclear.  We may, as a democracy, judge that the benefits are worth it.
That's OK, too."

Now, the question I asked was this:  When evaluating competing energy
technologies, why not apply the same assessment criteria to all?  Why
concentrate on the risks of one, while ignoring the risks of another?

Do you have something to add?


> >
> > Very droll, but I'm still in the dark about why you use different
criteria
> > to assess the merits of different energy systems.  Maybe it's just my
> > reductionist engineering outlook, but I have this feeling that to do so
is
> > not intellectually honest.  I mean, I understand the visceral attraction
> of
> > solar and wind power:  more "natural" and local, and so on, but it's not
a
> > great base for public policy.
> >
> > I'll repeat:  Labour statistics and common sense tell us that some
> > occupations are riskier than others, and I have NO objection to the
> > existence of these jobs, assuming all applicable standards are met.
I've
> > worked in a few myself, machine shops, large factories, restaurants and
so
> > on.
> >
> > But if you start installing PV panels en masse across the country, some
> > people will die as a result.  That's a fact.  It's quite possible that
> more
> > deaths will result than those due to other energy technologies, such as
> gas
> > or nuclear.  We may, as a democracy, judge that the benefits are worth
it.
> > That's OK, too.  But can you answer this:  Why are those hypothetical
> deaths
> > less important than the hypothetical deaths due to nuclear or gas
energy?
> > If you think these deaths are less important, would you like to explain
> your
> > reasoning to the surviving family members?
> >
> > If you get a chance, read "Energy Risk Assessment" by Herbert Inhaber.
> > Published in the early 80's, it's still informative today.  Inhaber
takes
> a
> > rather comprehensive approach to evaluating the risks due to different
> > energy systems, looking at resource extraction, manufacture and
> > construction, maintenance, and employment risks.  I can't remember if he
> > looks at deaths to pollution.  He also has a section in the back in
which
> he
> > reprints criticisms of his work and either rebuts them or modifies his
> > methodology.
> >
> >
>
>