another 15,000

[Michael Stabin <stabin@npd.ufpe.br>]

I just got my copy of "The Need for Nuclear Power", from the Jan-Feb 2000
issue of Foreign Affairs (as noted previously on Radsafe).  Some rehash
here, I assume, but there were a number of striking comments in this
article -

1) "Recent studies by the Harvard School of Public Health indicate that
pollutants from coal burning cause about 15,000 premature deaths annually in
the United States alone."  I don't know the model assumptions here, but
interesting in regard to recent threads about Chernobyl.

2) Coal - "Current laws force nuclear utilities...to invest in expensive
systems that limit the release of radioactivity...If coal utilities were
forced to assume similar costs, coal electricity would no longer be cheaper
than nuclear...in equivalent lives lost per gigawatt generated...coal kills
37 people annually, oil, 32; gas, 2; nuclear, 1."

3) Renewables - "The National Audobon Society has launched a campaign to
save the California condor from a proposed wind farm to be built north of
Los Angeles[!!!]...more eagles have been killed by wind turbines than were
lost in the disastrous Exxon Valdez oil spill."

4) Accident risk - "Recent dam failures and overflows in Italy and India
each resulted in several thousand fatalities.  Coal-mine accidents, oil- and
gas-plant fires, and pipeline exposions typically kill hundreds per
incident...According to the [USEPA], between 1987 and 1996...accidental
releases of toxic chemicals in the United States killed a total 2,565 people
and injured 22,949."  Again, like LNT, one should scrutinize model
assumptions here, but shouldn't there be some "scream parity" out there?
Where are all the groups trying to shut down these technologies?

5) "Physical reality - not arguments about corporate greed, hypothetical
risks, radiation exposure or waste disposal - out to inform decisions vital
to the future of the world."  Nahh, a bit radical for my taste.  What does
reality have to do with anything?  Real deaths or hypothetical deaths, hmmm,
hard to choose.

6) "Contrary to the assertions of antinuclear organizations, nuclear power
is neither dead nor dying...natural gas will share the lead in power
generation with nuclear power over the next hundred years..."

One author is a nuclear engineer, so the bias in the article is evident.
Nonetheless, the conclusions are backed up with documentation, and the
opinions are certainly credible.  Far more credible than many of the claims
of some nuclear power opponents. It will be interesting to see the response
in letters to the editor of the journal.


Michael Stabin, PhD, CHP
Departamento de Energia Nuclear/UFPE
Av. Prof. Luiz Freire, 1000 - Cidade Universitaria
CEP 50740 - 540
Recife - PE
Brazil
Phone 55-81-271-8251 or 8252 or 8253
Fax  55-81-271-8250
E-mail stabin@npd.ufpe.br

"Quantum Mechanics: The dreams stuff is made of"
- Steven Wright


************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html