Yes.
The number of Uranium miner fatalities included is very small; Partly because Uranium has a very high energy density - you don't need to mine much Uranium to generate a given amount of electricity, but you do need to mine a LOT of coal to get the same amount of power; And this would result in much lower fatalities per TWh even if fatalities per tonne were similar (they are not). This is because these days, Uranium is very safe to mine - particularly when compared to coal. The fatalities in the study to which you linked all occurred before power generation was a significant market for Uranium - the stuff those guys mined went to making bombs.
The is explained
here - and that page is linked from the page where the .04 figure is sourced from.
Modern Uranium mines generally have good management practices to minimise the risk from Radon; Uranium mines tend to be less prone to collapse than coal mines due to the geology of the target minerals; Uranium mines are not subject to firedamp (methane) explosions; They are typically less dusty than coal mines; and there are fewer 'legacy' mines using outdated equipment or methods than is the case for coal. The Radon threat is one of the largest issues in Uranium mine safety; In coal mines, Radon is also a threat, but rarely needs to be considered, as the measures needed to clear methane from the mine are usually effective in getting rid of Radon as well.
In regards to tallying deaths per terawatt hour, including deaths for mining uranium for nuclear weapons would be like adding in the deaths from falls from roofs, even if they were not installing or maintaining solar panels, against solar power.
Are we counting all the deaths from the nukes here?
I am not entirely sure what part of 'Yes' you are struggling with, but if you wnat the details, they are at the links provided.
You want to separate deaths of indians who come down with lung cancer on their reservations because they worked in Uranium mines or lived too near tailings piles?
No, I 'want' to separate those deaths that were due to making nuclear bombs from the ones that were due to generating power; a reasonable thing to do if we are discussing power generation. The alternative would be to include all the WWII casualties as due to oil fired power plants, because oil was used to lubricate the weapons used to kill them. Oddly enough, deaths from unrelated activities are not included when tallying the deaths caused by an activity. Not all Uranium is used for power plants; the Uranium used for other things no more counts towards power plant deaths than people drowning in backyard swiming pools counts towards hydroelectric plant deaths - they are unrelated.
I had an acquaintance who had been involved in uranium mining engineering his job involved the ventillation systems you are talking about here.
That's lovely. I expect you are an expert then. I have a friend who is a surgeon, so if you need your appendix out, I can do it for you.
Before you can trust any of these studies, you have to have an accounting of just what they count and how thorough they were and over what time period they made their observations.
Indeed. Which is why there are all those links to exactly that information at the sources I already provided.
A terrawatt hour is 1000 gigawatt hours.
No shit, Sherlock. It is also a million megawatt hours, a billion kilowatt hours, and a trillion watt hours. You can even express it as 3.41214163 trillion BTUs.
Such a calculation would involve one hell of a lot of monitoring and I am very skeptical of the figures you post.
What rot. Are you of the opinion that you can't say how many miles an hour someone is driving at unless they maintain a steady speed for an hour?
It would depend on researchers being utterly devoted to their research and being everywhere at the same time. For instance, keeping track of the fishes in the sea.
What the flying fuck do the fishes in the sea have to do with anything? Have I stumbled into a surrealist board?
