Coal vs. Nuclear

[BYRPV@ccmail.ceco.com]

On 12/1/95, Ron Kathren wrote in response to an inquiry on radioactive 
materials released by coal fired plants:


 ...the real purpose of this is to hope that we will not try to 
 justify nuclear power by noting that coal fired plants release more 
 radioactivity.  Such an overly simplistic comparison does not do our 
 profession justice.  Let us not lost sight of our mission:  
 PROTECTION OF PEOPLE (maybe especially workers) AND THE ENVIRONMENT 
 FROM THE HARMFUL EFFECTS OF RADIATION, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME 
 REALIZING THE BENEFITS FOR MANKIND. 
 
I think everyone reading this believes that mankind is better served 
with electric power than without (ie. benefit to mankind).  The two 
top power production methods in the U.S. are burning coal and 
splitting atoms.  As health physicists it is true in strictest sense 
that our role in society is to protect the public and the worker from 
the harmful effects of radiation.  The discussion of relative risks, 
however, is right up our alley.  We are conditioned to balance risks 
with benefits routinely.  Risk analyses have been performed which 
quantify the risks involved with the entire process of various methods 
of power production.  They have been formulated using accepted 
practices and methodology.  Just because the answer comes up that 
nuclear power (including the ultimate disposal of the wastes and the 
potentials for accidents are factored in) is orders of magnitude less 
risky than mining and burning coal doesn't make it a biased study.  
When you say 'we will not try to justify nuclear power', it sounds 
like nuke plants are some kind of terrible mistake that the nuclear 
industry is trying make look benevolent.  Nuclear power needs no more 
justification.  The only thing wrong with it is that it's costly and 
the only reason its costly is that people somehow believe that 
radiation risk is far worse than any other kind.

Sometimes I get the feeling from reading some of the postings on 
radsafe that there are professional HPs in various sectors that 
somehow feel the same way as the general public.  That is to say don't 
"bother me with the facts my mind's made up."

Please, continue talking about relative risks!  

byrpv@ccmail.ceco.com
Paul Vitalis 
Principal Health Physicist
Byron Nuclear Power Station
4450 N. German Church Road
First Nuke Plant on the right
Byron, Illinois 61101


"We're running around here like we have our legs cut off!"

                                                Wally Johnson

 
 
 
 

>I'm joining this thread late, so perhaps this has already been brought up, 
>but are there not detectable releases of radioactivity during the burning of 
>fossil fuels?  Also, there is a great deal more variability in the quality 
>of fossil fuels in use - some areas of the world burn some pretty low grade 
>coal - as well as a lot less in the way of controls and regulation.
>
>Alan Enns
>aenns@unixg.ubc.ca
>
>
>