Fukushima Meltdown Driving Increased Abnormalities Among US Infants

[Bernardo de La Paz]

28. All those who say bullshit: read the article. The highly respected Jim Hansen participated.

Yes, that Jim Hansen.

Very interesting article. Thanks for posting the link.

Pay attention folks and don't do the Right Wing thing of immediately poo-pooing something based on the headline and because it might contradict cherished hopes and illusions.

We always call out the Right Wing and Republicans, especially teabaggers, for denying scientific studies and reality. Don't fall into the same trap.

Excerpt (emphasis added by me):

The NASA researchers combined this information with historical energy generation data to estimate how many deaths would have been caused if fossil-fuel burning was used instead of nuclear power generation from 1971 to 2009. They similarly estimated that the use of nuclear power over that time caused 5,000 or so deaths, such as cancer deaths from radiation fallout and worker accidents. Comparing those two estimates, Kharecha and Hansen came up with the 1.8 million figure.

They next estimated the total number of deaths that could be prevented through nuclear power over the next four decades using available estimates of future nuclear use. Replacing all forecasted nuclear power use until 2050 with natural gas would cause an additional 420,000 deaths, whereas swapping it with coal, which produces significantly more pollution than gas, would mean about 7 million additional deaths. The study focused strictly on deaths, not long-term health issues that might shorten lives, and the authors did not attempt to estimate potential deaths tied to climate change.

Finally the pair compared carbon emissions from nuclear power to fossil fuel sources. They calculated that if coal or natural gas power had replaced nuclear energy from 1971 to 2009, the equivalent of an additional 64 gigatons of carbon would have reached the atmosphere. Looking forward, switching out nuclear for coal or natural gas power would lead to the release of 80 to 240 gigatons of additional carbon by 2050.

By comparison, previous climate studies suggest that the total allowable emissions between now and 2050 are about 500 gigatons of carbon. This level of emissions would keep atmospheric CO2 concentrations around 350 ppm, which would avoid detrimental warming.

http://cen.acs.org/articles/91/web/2013/04/Nuclear-Power-Prevents-Deaths-Causes.html

Note: The study compares fossil fuels to nuclear. It does not compare non-carbon renewable energy. Nor does it compare carbon renewable energy (bio-fuels), which would allow some global warming compared to non-carbon energy, in the medium term, until the bio-fuel carbon sequestration cycle kicks in. Furthermore, carbon renewable energy systems are not perfect for health in all ways and would contribute deaths too.

Bottom line: Things would be much worse if nuclear hadn't come along.

Bottom bottom line: Fortunately switching out entirely to NG or coal ain't gonna happen and shouldn't happen, though more coal and NG plants will be built in parts of the world.

Bottom bottom bottom line: Renewable energy in the form of hydro, solar, and wind must be increased, and it will take investment and commitment the right wing will try to block, but renewable non-carbon is just not going to pick up all the slack in the next 37 years. Sorry.