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

Maury 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. 
> 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 only]:
> http://www.onearth.org/article/climate-change-health-costs-big-bill
> 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
> 203-441-8433
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> 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 mailing list