[meteorite-list] OT: RISKS OF NUCLEAR POWER

From: Martin Altmann <altmann_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 13:54:35 +0100
Message-ID: <000f01cbe4a2$78ac3e20$6a04ba60$_at_de>

Good morning Sterling,

As macabre it may sound in the light of the horrible events in Japan,
I seriously doubt, that it makes sense to compare immediate deaths in
accidents of the direct energy production, Sterling.

>From Hiroshima, Nagasaki, the testing of nuclear weapons and the Chernobyl
disaster it is known, that many types of radiation syndromes have latencies
of several decades, not to mention the damages of the genetic constitution
with natal deaths in the next generation.

These effects are difficult to record, the data records are poor and always
object to political manipulation.

The same applies of course to the energy production with fossil resources,
the mortal diseases caused by the pollution by combustion products and the
mining of the resources (the latter btw. also for the nuclear materials, -
and who ever had miners in his family knows, that still in our grandfather
generation the miners had a shorter life-span because usually they died
earlier of silicosis).

Therefore, Sterling, I think your comparative stats are useless.

For Chernobyl btw. exist other numbers too.

IAEA says 56 death - immediate ones at the very catastrophe due lethal doses
and included 9 children by thyroid cancer. (caused by the short-lived iodine
131 - the thyroidal cancer rate among children from that area was tenfold
increased from 1986-1990).

The Ukrainian Commission on Radiological Protection counts 34,499 deaths
among the rescue workers.

While WHO has an estimate of 50,000 deaths until the year 2000 among the
rescue helper and those employed as "liquidators" for the cleanup efforts.

And Sterling, one thing I personally can't understand is, that some always
speak of nuclear power as a cheap and clean way of energy production.
This might be the case for the direct production, if you let such incidents
aside,
but it works only if you separate the question of the dispose of the
accumulating waste.
(If you would include those, anyway nuclear power wouldn't be competitive on
the market. But also else it is subsidized, the research, the erecting of
the plants, or e.g. the exemption from liability insurances, which would be
remarkable high, seen the possible damage of a worst case, and so on).

That waste you have to isolate from the environment for time-spans up to 1
million years,
until the emission of radiation has fallen to a level which is regarded
today as harmless.

Raise and fall of empires... such a normal society lasts a couple of hundred
years, our religions were founded a few single thousands of years ago, the
oldest man made buildings...nja well, 5-10 ice ages, would have to look for,
we had the last 1 million years...

And the costs... John Dow says, dig it in, put a tin hut on top, hire two
watchmen, a door man and a caretaker, be scrooge, pay them including social
insurances/pension 30,000$ per year each
Et viola makes in 1 million years 120 billion USD
- ouch! Sounds not that cheap.

Anyway all in all to me it seems, that that method of energy production
doesn't keep that, what the enthusiasm of the 1970ies and 1980ies had
promised.
(Running gag, have you ever heard of nuclear fusion? In the 1950ies it was
promised to be ready in the 1980ies...)

My 1st and last 2 cents to that very off-topic topic.
Cause it doesn't belong on the meteorite-list.
Martin


PS: We here in Germany have no idea where to put the waste.
For 30 years now we couldn't find any geological formation stable enough
regarding erosion and geological processes to dig that stuff in. Soon we'll
have 20,000 tons of that, a part of it highly radioactive - currently it's
kept in containers, designed for 40 years safety.
All that is paid by the tax-payer.




>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: "Sterling K. Webb" <sterling_k_webb at sbcglobal.net>
>>Sent: Mar 16, 2011 10:38 PM
>>To: Meteorite List <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
>>Subject: [meteorite-list] OT: RISKS OF NUCLEAR POWER
>>
>>List,
>>
>>We are invariably abnormally impressed by the
>>sudden occurrence of a rare, high-risk event.
>>We do not appraise them in a strictly rational
>>manner when this happens.
>>
>>The current application of fear caused by a very
>>rare event, as we see in Japan, is weighted heavily.
>>For those interested in the actual data, the human
>>cost, in lives, of the various means of electric power
>>production are listed below.
>>
>>Deaths are for the period 1970 through 1992, the
>>only period for which data could be collected for all
>>the means of production.
>>
>>All deaths are "immediate" deaths, and the figures
>>are on a worldwide basis, which includes countries
>>with less stringent industrial safety requirements
>>than the U.S. This is the picture for the Planet.
>>
>>Hydroelectric production accounted for roughly 4000
>>deaths, of members of the public, or 883 deaths per
>>terawatt-year. The vast majority of those deaths were
>>from the failure of dams and impoundments.
>>
>>Coal power production produced about 6400 deaths,
>>all of workers, for a death rate of 342 deaths per
>>terawatt-year. (Deaths from the mining of coal are
>>included in proportion to the use of coal in direct
>>power production.)
>>
>>Natural Gas power production resulted in some
>>1200 deaths, of both industry workers and the
>>general public, for 85 deaths per terawatt-year.
>>
>>Nuclear Power resulted in 31 deaths, all of workers,
>>for a total of 8 deaths per terawatt-year, or 1%
>>of the deaths from "safe" environmentally friendly
>>hydroelectric power.
>>
>>The "other fuel," petroleum, is rarely used for power
>>production but largely for transportation. How deadly,
>>in these terms, is our transportation power use in
>>cars and trucks as compared to the cost in life of
>>power production?
>>
>>The U.S. consumed 0.138 teragallons of gasoline
>>on 2009 (at 4.175 watt-years per gallon), with a
>>total energy content of a "mere" 0.576 terawatt-years.
>>Highway deaths in 2009 were 33,963, which yields
>>58,943 deaths per terawatt-year of power consumed.
>>
>>Clearly, the use of this power source for transport
>>is many orders of magnitude more dangerous than
>>the production of electrical power, however it is
>>accomplished. Our reaction to this horrendous
>>risk is to complain about how much it costs us to
>>fill'er up.
>>
>>Humans are not rational animals.
>>
>>The reduction in overall life expectancy in the
>>U.S. due to nuclear power production is one-third
>>of the reduction in life expectancy caused by eating
>>8 ounces. of charcoal-broiled steak per week.
>>
>>Make mine medium-rare, please.
>>
>>
>>
>>Sterling K. Webb
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>______________________________________________
>>Visit the Archives at
http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
>>Meteorite-list mailing list
>>Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>>http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
>______________________________________________
>Visit the Archives at
http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
>Meteorite-list mailing list
>Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list



      
______________________________________________
Visit the Archives at
http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Received on Thu 17 Mar 2011 08:54:35 AM PDT