[ RadSafe ] Climate change health effects costs - Nuclear Energy Benefit and magnitude of risk

Stewart Farber SAFarber at optonline.net
Fri Nov 11 16:55:31 CST 2011

A study appearing online today,  is being published in a true peer  
reviewed journal -- the  November issue of the journal Health Affairs. See:

"Six Climate Change–Related Events In The United States Accounted For  
About $14 Billion In Lost Lives And Health Costs"
Health Aff November 2011 30:112167-2176;

A news summary of above journal article [the full article is by  
subscription to the Journal, Health Affairs, or single article purchase  


The above analysis highlights, to any right-headed sentient person, the  
incentive for non-fossil fuel power generation, including the beneficial  
contribution of nuclear generation by over 400 nuclear plants worldwide.

PLEASE, let's not make this post a stimulus to a contentious online debate  
about whether or not Global Warming is real or if real is occuring due to  
humanity's actions.  That ship has sailed, and to argue against it makes a  
person  appear as beyond-the-fringe. The public, media, legislators, and  
regulators have made that decision.

There is no need for anyone to try and argue that radiation exposure as it  
exists from background,  medical uses, global fallout, Consumer, Misc.  
Industrial,  and nuclear energy [from highest to absolute lowest  
integrated exposure] is a minimal to trivial risk, while at the same time  
trying to argue that global warming does not exist.

For the record, per the recent NCRP 160, "Ionizing Radiation Exposure of  
the Population of the US", a summation of radiation exposure is tabulated  
below in person Sv:

Ubiquitous Background:        933,000 person Sv
Medical:                      899,000
Consumer-misc.:                37,400
Industrial [non-nuclear power]: 1,000
Nuclear Power:                    150    [less that 0.01% of total]

TOTAL:                      1,870,000 person Sv

Amazingly, there are reports that some "scientists"  try to make a  
lucrative career out of distorting the most basic issues of radiation  
dosimetry and risk, while exploiting trivial integrated radiation exposure  
 from Nuclear Power. I have even heard that there may be some con men who  
attempt to terrify the Japanese public for example into such actions as  
buying little radiation detox mineral/multivitamin strength tablets at  
almost $100 per bottle. These extremist interests would have society  
squander over $1 trillion by shutting down a beneficial technology like  
today's worldwide nuclear electric generation capacity,  for their petty  
ego gratification and financial interests. Is such a thing possible?

Stewart Farber, MS Public Health

More information about the RadSafe mailing list