Re: another 15,000

[William V Lipton <liptonw@dteenergy.com>]

Keeping your message in mind, here's some new advertising messages.

"Go Nuclear - It only kills half as many people as coal!"

"Go Nuclear - Windmills kill more birds than the Exxon Valdez."

"If you make coal more expensive, nuclear would be chaper."

"A nuclear power accident is less likely than a dam failure."

Needless to say, I won't bother copyrighting any of this.  Please just keep in
mind that comparative body counts don't make nuclear, or anything else, more
appealing.

The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose, it's about trust.

Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com

Michael Stabin wrote:

> 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

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