Re: Deaths from fossil fuel burning air pollution

[Bernard L Cohen <blc+@pitt.edu>]

On Wed, 6 Dec 2000, Franz Schoenhofer wrote:

> I have not followed this thread, but for me it seems that calculating
> numbers of deaths or potential deaths becomes a kind of a "play" and the
> "winner" is who predicts the highest numbers, because he gets most attention
> by the media!!!

	--These are scientific studies, carried out by reputable
scientists, and published in peer reviewed scientific journals. If you
object to aspects of such a study, you should send a letter-to=the=Editor
of the journal and if your objections meet their scientific standards, it
will be published. That is the way science is done. The Media are
irrelevant in this process. 

 Nuclear power is obviously no exemption from the rule. But
> to use calculated deaths from pollution versus calculated deaths from the
> use of nuclear power for arguments pro nuclear is disgusting. Do we really
> need such arguments?

	--Even the calculated deaths from nuclear power are very credible
*if* one accepts the linear-no threshold theory. But there is no theory
involved in estimating deaths from air pollution.

	If you don't believe that nuclear power is much less harmful to
human health than coal burning, why do you favor nuclear power?

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