Depends on whose english you’re using. For the Europeans, the Buteo is a buzzard. In the US, we call it a hawk. Vultures are vultures wherever. In the US, vultures = buzzards.
But regardless, I’m pretty sure that was an eagle that caught the blade, especially if that vid is from the US.
Everything fails eventually: windmills, cars, guitar strings, scenic rock formations, nuclear power plants. . . .
Some cause more damage than others.
yes, more people have died in wind turbine related deaths than from nuclear power for example (mostly from falling off them during maintenance).
Are we counting all the premature cancer deaths from the Chernobyl disaster? Because the U.N. estimates that number around 4000.
Yep, even if you include that.
Well, I’m pretty sure the name “turkey buzzard” is only used in parts of North America, not Europe.And that is the same animal as the common turkey vulture (Cathartes aura).
Could be an eagle, but it was soaring like a vulture with the dihedral wing stance. Either way, sucked to be that bird.
If you count only directly attributable deaths, then the total number is lower for nuclear than wind, if you include the estimated deaths (which are based off the controversial and unproven linear-no-threshold model, so it’s worth taking those results with a large grain of salt) then the total number is higher for nuclear, but the deaths-per-watt number is still significantly lower for nuclear. of course then you look at the deaths-per-watt for coal power, and find it’s many orders of magnitude greater than for nuclear and you wonder why humans are so dumb.
Yeah, but the very end. Really? 
Oh, and skin cancer! Guess no solar.
I said “damage”, I didn’t say “deaths.”
The land around a failed windmill is still useful, the land around Chernobyl and Fukushima, not so much.
Or why so many people based their vote on an empty promise to bring back one of the most dangerous and environmentally destructive industries our country ever had.
most of the land around Fukushima is safe now. also, consider the damage when the water is lapping around our ankles because we failed to implement workable solutions to climate change (thinking we can solve it all with renewables isn’t workable).
I was going to complain that none of these are able to mill anything, but generating electricity is definition number 2. I have always used the phrase “wind generator”. But I guess few people mill grain by wind anymore.
I also never said I was opposed to nuclear power, but the damage done from poorly designed or maintained nuclear power plants is still significant. Windmills also don’t result in hazardous waste we have to store for a thousand years. There are always trade-offs.
I can only assume that the “Actually ask Youtube a question” strategy was employed in the service of providing material for future disaster-porn videos; not in hope of an answer; the alternative is simply too depressing.
One box is convenient, and especially good for text, but the aspect ratio often distorts the comic badly.
Even if your assertion was correct there remains another 20,000 years (at least) until humans can safely inhabit the land around Chernobyl.
It’s a little ironic that you[quote=“caze, post:26, topic:99887”]
wonder why humans are so dumb.
[/quote]
yet seem comfortable advocating the pursuit of nuclear energy despite the catastrophic consequences of reactor accidents and the fact there remains no workable system of safely disposing of the waste.
Space elevators are almost workable…
Almost.
Please!?
Finally- raining fiery death down from the sky is just what we needed to make renewable energy sexy.
Fast breeder reactors happily consume all actinides leaving only fission products which have a maximum half-life of 91 years. They’ll also reduce the amount of waste to 1% of your typical light water reactor.
We lost our interest in them because it was cheaper to mine more uranium than use it efficiently and no one cared about waste for decades.
That said, a single decent sized fast breeder reactor could use existing nuclear waste as power and leave a much smaller and easier to dispose of waste product behind.
Sounds like an interesting prospect - and one worthy of further consideration. Of course an above zero risk of accident and unexpected phenomena remains…
Accident: A statistical inevitability. On a long enough timeline, everything that can go wrong will - however small the likelihood from one day to the next. Accident is no accident. (Contradictionary)
Still, it would be nice to see some action to deal with the tonnes of improperly stored toxic waste from past experiments in careless technological fundamentalism.
It’s curious how congress can muster billions to wage unecessary wars but is beyond securing finance for long-term solutions for the current San Onofre Nuclear Waste threat or the leaking Runit Dome.
(Edit:grammar)
That’s the sort of idea that might have stood a fighting chance when the head of the Department of Energy was a nuclear physicist instead of a man who once pledged to eliminate the Department of Energy.
