🚀 go-pugleaf

how many people die shingling roofs? maybe we should stop shingling?

--
--
Steve Spence
Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.com
Palm Pilot Pages - http://www.webconx.com/palm
X10 Home Automation - http://www.webconx.com/x10
sspence@webconx.com
(212) 894-3704 x3154 - voicemail/fax
If we don't believe in freedom of speech
for people who we disagree with, we don't believe in it at all.
--

"Murray Love" <murraylove@home.com> wrote in message
news:WCk%4.8851$F9.295508@news1.gvcl1.bc.home.com...
>
> "wmbjk" <wmbjk@ctaz.com> wrote in message
> news:0q8%4.329$N25.66881@news-west.eli.net...
> >
> > "Murray Love" <murraylove@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:g6__4.7693$F9.265459@news1.gvcl1.bc.home.com...
> > >
> > > - pretty much everything carries some risk, and I'm not
> > > suggesting that you NOT put panels on the roof--simply that you
consider
> > > that we might well end up with a technology that results in greater
> injury
> > > and death than many of the alternatives.
> > >
> >
> > Not trying to make (too much) fun of your argument there Murray, but
> > consider this.
> >
> > If they ramp up production of "neighborhood nuke plants", how many
people
> > will sustain injury or death lugging heavy bundles of paper work to
> lawyers'
> > offices?
> >
> > As for all those plummeting PV installers, we're trying to keep that a
> > secret. Now that sales are increasing, it's getting harder and harder to
> get
> > all of our club members to keep their mouths shut. My best advice is to
> > listen closely when walking by any tall building owned by an energy
> > conscious person. If you hear a sound like "Aaaaaahhhh!", DUCK and
COVER!
> > :-)
> >
>
> 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.
>
>