The daily...weekly...occasional journal by someone you don't know.

Nuclear doom?

Mar27
2008 4 Comments Written by CelticBear

Read:

A report in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that some 50,000-100,000 Americans die each year from lung cancer caused by particulate air pollution, the biggest cause of which is coal-burning power plants in the midwest and east. Even taking the maximum predicted death toll from Chernobyl, we would need a Chernobyl-sized accident every three weeks to make nuclear power as deadly as coal and oil already is. Shall I repeat that? If the world was filled with Generation I reactors run by feuding coal miners, we would need a worst-case scenario every three weeks just to match the US death toll we’ve imposed upon ourselves by clinging to our current fossil fuel system. Next time you see a hippie cheering the defeat of nuclear power in the US, realize that a healthy environment and saving lives are clearly not their priorities.

This is a quote from a recent Skeptoid episode:

♦ The Terror of Nuclear Power
(you can read the transcript, or listen to the 18 minute audio file)

In this episode, Brian examines the reason why Americans are so scared of nuclear power–and why it’s, today, unfounded. Not only unfounded, but harming us by allowing us to continue to create many times more deaths and illness due to coal and oil, and keeping us addicted to these non-renewable energy resources, when nuclear power is today safer and cleaner than any alternative.

Related posts:

  1. “Spiraling tentacles of galactic doom!”
Posted in SCIENCE
«
»
  • Robert Singleton

    Celtic Bear:

    You’ve set up a straw man in your post. You estimate the number of Chernobyl deaths (and I think you understate them) and then argue that it is a “worst-case scenario” to argue that nuclear power is safe.

    I would argue that a true worst-case scenario would involve something like a terrorist attack on the spent-fuel pool at Indian Point. Millions of people in New York could be exposed to radiation.

    As Jackson Browne put it: “Don’t think it won’t happen just because it hasn’t happened yet.”

    Nobody’s arguing that coal and fossil fuels aren’t responsible for a lot of deaths, just that the alternatives are not limited to coal or nukes.

    I’d be interested in your “worst-case scenario” for a wind farm.

  • Robert Singleton

    Celtic Bear:

    You’ve set up a straw man in your post. You estimate the number of Chernobyl deaths (and I think you understate them) and then argue that it is a “worst-case scenario” to argue that nuclear power is safe.

    I would argue that a true worst-case scenario would involve something like a terrorist attack on the spent-fuel pool at Indian Point. Millions of people in New York could be exposed to radiation.

    As Jackson Browne put it: “Don’t think it won’t happen just because it hasn’t happened yet.”

    Nobody’s arguing that coal and fossil fuels aren’t responsible for a lot of deaths, just that the alternatives are not limited to coal or nukes.

    I’d be interested in your “worst-case scenario” for a wind farm.

  • http://blog.celticbear.com/ CelticBear

    Thanks for commenting. Note, though, that I didn’t set up the argument, Brian at Skeptoid did.
    Either way, I don’t agree with you that it’s a straw man.
    Worst case scenario does NOT imply that nuclear power is “safe,” but that it’s SAFER than normal, ordinary, everyday operation of coal and oil drilling and refining we’re doing right now!
    Right now, with what we have, thousands of people die a year from not only pollution, but workers drilling and digging for coal and oil and refining it. How many deaths have occurred in ANY stage 2, 3, or 3-plus nuclear reactor?

    Nuclear plants aren’t “safe,” they’re safer. By many times.

    And a terrahist attack is going to suck, and kill many, regardless of if it’s a nuclear plant or a high-rise office building. Which is the more reasonable path:
    1. We continue to knowingly, assuredly, certainly, kill tens of thousands of people a year with coal and oil, or
    2. Switch to a cleaner and safer energy source that MIGHT kill thousands in one remote event?

    And you’re right, those aren’t the only choices, but the alternatives are at BEST supplements. It would take a wind farm the size of Oregon to produce the power of a nuclear reactor. And that’s only with consistent, optimum weather.
    Wind generators, earth temperature…thingies, solar panels, are all excellent ways to supplement power usage and we should be using a LOT more of them! But none of them, or even all of them put together, can power the energy needs of America like coal, oil, and nuclear energy.

    Of those three, I know which one I’d rather.

  • http://blog.celticbear.com CelticBear

    Thanks for commenting. Note, though, that I didn’t set up the argument, Brian at Skeptoid did.
    Either way, I don’t agree with you that it’s a straw man.
    Worst case scenario does NOT imply that nuclear power is “safe,” but that it’s SAFER than normal, ordinary, everyday operation of coal and oil drilling and refining we’re doing right now!
    Right now, with what we have, thousands of people die a year from not only pollution, but workers drilling and digging for coal and oil and refining it. How many deaths have occurred in ANY stage 2, 3, or 3-plus nuclear reactor?

    Nuclear plants aren’t “safe,” they’re safer. By many times.

    And a terrahist attack is going to suck, and kill many, regardless of if it’s a nuclear plant or a high-rise office building. Which is the more reasonable path:
    1. We continue to knowingly, assuredly, certainly, kill tens of thousands of people a year with coal and oil, or
    2. Switch to a cleaner and safer energy source that MIGHT kill thousands in one remote event?

    And you’re right, those aren’t the only choices, but the alternatives are at BEST supplements. It would take a wind farm the size of Oregon to produce the power of a nuclear reactor. And that’s only with consistent, optimum weather.
    Wind generators, earth temperature…thingies, solar panels, are all excellent ways to supplement power usage and we should be using a LOT more of them! But none of them, or even all of them put together, can power the energy needs of America like coal, oil, and nuclear energy.

    Of those three, I know which one I’d rather.

Archives

EFF bloggers rights