Reply #2: What "thousand" cancers are you talking about? [View All]

Got any data on thyroid cancer rates, recovery rates in any circumstances, or are you just doing a little chant?

Radon risks - involving a potential lung cancer risk - from geothermal operations are widely known and understood, although not by any fundementalists who despise science, since their "knowledge" of science consists entirely of wikipedia references.

Apparently the fundementalists can't understand the contents of even the New York Times, although the New York Times I admit is often poor at making risk comparisons. It's not like they report on the regular death rate of coal, oil, dangerous natural gas, wind, or other energy systems.

Radon releases from geothermal plants are very low risk, of course, and are generally known by people who know science to be a minor part of their external costs. The major risks of geothermal plants consist entirely of carbon dioxide releases, salt intrusion into ground water etc, depletion of "resource" (as at Geyers).

Geothermal is known to be a relatively clean form of energy, although obviously new risks are associated with new approaches to it.

But again, you would have to have a passing knowledge of the scientific literature on external costs of energy to have a remote understanding of risk.

There are ZERO fundementalists here who can qualify on that score.

You would have to be a fucking idiot to not understand the difference between the risks of an earthquake and the experimentally determined risks of thyroid cancer from nuclear power releases in both accidental and operational settings, for instance from the thousands of references contained on the subject. The risk of showing oneself to be a fucking idiot has not prevented a single fundementalist from doing so, albeit obliviously.