Re: Three mile island syndrome

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

On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, ruth_weiner wrote:

> This is why I agree that  trying to portray other means of electric power
> production as villains and nukes as saints, or even only portraying other
> means as worse villains than nukes, is self defeating.

	--Is there no place for rational reasoning in the process?
According to widely accepted analyses, nuclear power may cause about 5
deaths per year in U.S. including reactor accidents, buried radioactive
waste, and everything else on a probabilistic basis and
accepting the linear-no threshold theory (antinukes may claim
that the toll is 10 times higher). whereas coal burning power is estimated
to cause at least 10,000 deaths per year from air pollution (plus double
that number from long term effects of carcinogens released into the top
layers of the ground). Is this factor of thousands in favor of nuclea
 irrelevant in deciding between nuclear power and coal burning, especially
when the arguments against nuclear are based on the idea that it is
harmful to human health? If it is irrelevant, I muust have gone insane.
	How else can rational reasoning lead to the conclusion that we
should use nuclear power in preference to coal burning? Or is rational
reasoning irrelevant? If so, what is the value of doing risk analysis? 

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