Re: radioactivity from fossil fuel power stations

[RuthWeiner@AOL.COM]

You know, I believe that all of the arguments on RADSAFE that might be 

summarized as "Energy Conversion Method A putatively kills more people that 

Energy Conversion Method B, so B must be better than A, so there!" lead to a 

dead end.  Moreover, they are neither constructive nor productive.


We have known for a very long time that the most dangerous occupation 

associated with energy conversion is underground coal mining.  However, strip 

mining coal is a mess, but kills fewer people.  Working on oil rigs, 

especially offshore, is very dangerous.  We had a dozen people killed in a 

gas pipeline explosion last year.  Windmills are dangerous to service.  And 

so on.


In fact:


1.  All energy conversion technologies have adverse environmental and health 

effects (Second Law of Thermodynamics).

2.  The world is going to use all of them anyway until they are all gone. 

3.  Human beings tolerate other much more lethal ventures (Driving cars?)

4.  No one has ever put a technology to use, or shunned a technology, because 

it carried severe occupational hazards.  A few applications of hazardous 

technology:  all mechanized agriculture (my daughter got her hand caught in 

the cog mechnism of a plow one summer), house construction, road 

construction, truck driving, rail freight, air travel, air freight, cooking 

(especially restaurant cooking).


we are not getting anywhere with arguments like "nukes kill fewer people than 

X but more than Y.''


Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.

ruthweiner@aol.com