Re: Deaths from fossil global warming

["Thomas J Savin " <tjsav@lycos.com>]

Hello everyone.

I've been following this thread and now I wish to get my TWO cents in (please). I understand both sides and want to add "more fuel" to the discussion.  Yes air pollution does affect the quality of life and can shorten some lives AND no one likes to speak of deaths.  My point here is that along with air pollution, there is also increased summer temperatures and ozone etc..... (associated with the burning of fossil fuels) Is there a model for the amount of deaths that occur due to increased heat? I don't know of one? Flooding? draught? are there models for how many people will incremently die as the climate changes?  Looking at it this way, nuclear power is a lamb when compared to the roaring (burning) lion
(anti-nukes).
I understand, and agree with a number of Bernie's points. The simple truth is we all support nuclear power as the obvious way to provide power for the future until new technologies are conceived.


Thanks!
Tom Savin

On Thu, 7 Dec 2000 09:28:24   
 Bernard L Cohen wrote:
>
>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
>


Great Gift Idea!  FREE cell phone, internet ready at Lycos Marketplace
 http://www.inphonic.lycos.com/redirect.asp?referringpage=www.lycosd1
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html