[ RadSafe ] Climate change health effects costs - Nuclear Energy Benefit and magnitude of risk
maurysis at peoplepc.com
Sat Nov 12 00:40:48 CST 2011
No better illustrations of violations of the logic of science have
surfaced since my graduate school days in the '50s! Fabulous material
just from the abstract; the complete paper should be a real humdinger!
Maury&Dog [MaurySiskel maurysis at peoplepc.com]
On 11/11/2011 4:55 PM, Stewart Farber wrote:
> A study appearing online today, is being published in a true peer
> reviewed journal -- the November issue of the journal Health Affairs.
> "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 only]:
> 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
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and
> understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.1869 / Virus Database: 2092/4610 - Release Date: 11/11/11
More information about the RadSafe