Re: UCS- NRC Relies on Falsified Safety Studies

[RuthWeiner@AOL.COM]

In a message dated 3/20/02 9:16:48 PM Mountain Standard Time, ncohen12@comcast.net writes:



> http://www.ucsusa.org/energy/nuc_risk.html


       Well, I started to read the report itself, and I justy don't have the time to catalog and refute all the distortions , mis-statements, and stuff taken out of context.  A few "highlights" from before I stopped reading:


1.  The definition of "risk"  given is specific to adverse effects, and not a general definition.  Risk is the product of probability and consequence. 

2.  The fact that nuclear plants do not have "zero risk"  is stated as some sort of failing.  Now come on, UCS, even you can't believe that there is any industrial process that actually poses "zero risk!"

3.  What are "minimum standards for accident probability calculations" that NRC fails to provide [emphasis mine]?

4. The claim that a U. S. nuclear plant accident "could" (whatever that means) kill more people than the Nagasaki bomb is based on (1) a 1982 reference and (2) a report on "Safety Assessment... of Permanently Shutdown Plants".  There were no calculations or quantitative data referred to (but maybe I didn't read far enough).

5.  The example of risk given is not an example of risk, but the standard insurance or lottery problem restated.  In its simplest  statement: how much would you pay (e.g. for car insurance) to avoid a much higher liability?


Ruth S. is also quite right: the adverse effects of other energy conversion methods are glossed over.


What are these folks after, anyway?



Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.

ruthweiner@aol.com