Deaths from nuclear and wind

[kristopher]

1) The number of fatalities associated strictly with the nuclear fuel chain (excludes major accidents) is 0.69/TWh (The Meaning Of Results: Comparative Risk Assessments OF Energy Options). http://www.informaworld.com/index/02X48X98DVPW7U96.pdf
The 0.69 deaths/TWh represents 0.04/TWh in OCCUPATIONAL fatalities AND 0.65/TWh in PUBLIC fatalities.

2)Gipe, (2006, 2009) finds that the number derived from considering ALL KNOWN FATALITIES ASSOCIATED WITH WIND (including incidents that strain credulity to attribute them to the technology) as of 2009 is 0.07/TWh. . Also, there is a very strong case to be made for the position that this already low number hugely exaggerates the actual risks associated with the wind industry.
http://www.wind-works.org/articles/BreathLife.html

One of the most significant issues, however, is the typical glossing over of what deaths are attributable to nuclear. This is typical of the way that omission is dealt with by nuclear proponents (it is an actual quote from a blog posted on DU in support of nuclear energy). "The World Health Organization study in 2005 indicated that 50 people died to that point as a direct result of Chernobyl. 4000 people may eventually die earlier as a result of Chernobyl, but those deaths would be more than 20 years after the fact and the cause and effect becomes more tenuous."

Compare to this 2009 peer reviewed study:

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
Volume 1181 Issue Chernobyl
Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, Pages 31 - 220

Chapter II. Consequences of the Chernobyl Catastrophe for Public Health

Alexey B. Nesterenko a , Vassily B. Nesterenko a ,† and Alexey V. Yablokov b
a
Institute of Radiation Safety (BELRAD), Minsk, Belarus b Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
Address for correspondence: Alexey V. Yablokov, Russian Academy of Sciences, Leninsky Prospect 33, Office 319, 119071 Moscow,
Russia. Voice: [phone]; fax: [phone]. [e-mail]
†Deceased


ABSTRACT

Problems complicating a full assessment of the effects from Chernobyl included official secrecy and falsification of medical records by the USSR for the first 3.5 years after the catastrophe and the lack of reliable medical statistics in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. Official data concerning the thousands of cleanup workers (Chernobyl liquidators) who worked to control the emissions are especially difficult to reconstruct. Using criteria demanded by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) resulted in marked underestimates of the number of fatalities and the extent and degree of sickness among those exposed to radioactive fallout from Chernobyl. Data on exposures were absent or grossly inadequate, while mounting indications of adverse effects became more and more apparent. Using objective information collected by scientists in the affected areas—comparisons of morbidity and mortality in territories characterized by identical physiography, demography, and economy, which differed only in the levels and spectra of radioactive contamination—revealed significant abnormalities associated with irradiation, unrelated to age or sex (e.g., stable chromosomal aberrations), as well as other genetic and nongenetic pathologies.

In all cases when comparing the territories heavily contaminated by Chernobyl's radionuclides with less contaminated areas that are characterized by a similar economy, demography, and environment, there is a marked increase in general morbidity in the former.

Increased numbers of sick and weak newborns were found in the heavily contaminated territories in Belarus, Ukraine, and European Russia.

Accelerated aging is one of the well-known consequences of exposure to ionizing radiation. This phenomenon is apparent to a greater or lesser degree in all of the populations contaminated by the Chernobyl radionuclides.

This section describes the spectrum and the scale of the nonmalignant diseases that have been found among exposed populations.

Adverse effects as a result of Chernobyl irradiation have been found in every group that has been studied. Brain damage has been found in individuals directly exposed—liquidators and those living in the contaminated territories, as well as in their offspring. Premature cataracts; tooth and mouth abnormalities; and blood, lymphatic, heart, lung, gastrointestinal, urologic, bone, and skin diseases afflict and impair people, young and old alike. Endocrine dysfunction, particularly thyroid disease, is far more common than might be expected, with some 1,000 cases of thyroid dysfunction for every case of thyroid cancer, a marked increase after the catastrophe. There are genetic damage and birth defects especially in children of liquidators and in children born in areas with high levels of radioisotope contamination.

Immunological abnormalities and increases in viral, bacterial, and parasitic diseases are rife among individuals in the heavily contaminated areas. For more than 20 years, overall morbidity has remained high in those exposed to the irradiation released by Chernobyl. One cannot give credence to the explanation that these numbers are due solely to socioeconomic factors. The negative health consequences of the catastrophe are amply documented in this chapter and concern millions of people.

The most recent forecast by international agencies predicted there would be between 9,000 and 28,000 fatal cancers between 1986 and 2056, obviously underestimating the risk factors and the collective doses. On the basis of I-131 and Cs-137 radioisotope doses to which populations were exposed and a comparison of cancer mortality in the heavily and the less contaminated territories and pre- and post-Chernobyl cancer levels, a more realistic figure is 212,000 to 245,000 deaths in Europe and 19,000 in the rest of the world. High levels of Te-132, Ru-103, Ru-106, and Cs-134 persisted months after the Chernobyl catastrophe and the continuing radiation from Cs-137, Sr-90, Pu, and Am will generate new neoplasms for hundreds of years.

A detailed study reveals that 3.8–4.0% of all deaths in the contaminated territories of Ukraine and Russia from 1990 to 2004 were caused by the Chernobyl catastrophe. The lack of evidence of increased mortality in other affected countries is not proof of the absence of effects from the radioactive fallout. Since 1990, mortality among liquidators has exceeded the mortality rate in corresponding population groups.

From 112,000 to 125,000 liquidators died before 2005—that is, some 15% of the 830,000 members of the Chernobyl cleanup teams. The calculations suggest that the Chernobyl catastrophe has already killed several hundred thousand human beings in a population of several hundred million that was unfortunate enough to live in territories affected by the fallout. The number of Chernobyl victims will continue to grow over many future generations.

[NNadir]

1. Wow. You've apparently accessed a SECOND paper to cite day after day after day.

Since 100% of the anti-nukes are talking about a subject about which they clearly know nothing at all, we won't discuss the relevance of the 25 year old Chernobyl disaster to anything connected with nuclear power anywhere else in the world.

There are zero anti-nukes who can comprehend a shred of reactor physics, just as there are zero anti-nukes who are interested in the percentage of people in the Ukraine or any where else on the planet who die from dangerous fossil fuel waste, dangerous fossil fuel wars, dangerous fossil fuel terrorism, or dangerous fossil fuel mining.

Thus it is useless to discuss the subject, say, of "void coefficients" with anti-nukes, since they rely wholly on ignorance to make their arguments.

There are zero anti-nukes who can think critically and thus realize that producing a paper from somewhere is decidedly not the same thing as proving truth.

Blondiot was a well respected physicist in the 1920s who got lots of people to publish results on his discovery of "N-rays." The only problem with N-rays is that they didn't exist. Nature sent

Irving Langmuir described these results - the 1980's cold fusion tale involving the (formerly, at least) well respected electrochemist Stanley Fleishman is another - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science">Pathological Science (the term is controversial) and, from the cute wikipedia reference which was not, as far as I can tell referring to intellectual lightweights posting on blogs about how wonderful wind power will save us - we have the following telling definition

Pathological science, as defined by Langmuir, is a psychological process in which a scientist, originally conforming to the scientific method, unconsciously veers from that method, and begins a pathological process of wishful data interpretation (see the Observer-expectancy effect, and cognitive bias).

Anti-nukes here like to post papers from Steven Wing showing that Harrisburg, PA was wiped out by Three Mile Island - and - papers like the one in the OP proving that Kiev, Ukraine has been wiped out.

One can easily see whether or not this is true, of course, but we won't go there since we don't want to mess with any pop delusions.

In any case, even if the bizarre statements in this paper were true - and they're garbage since, for instance, they do not refer to control groups when referring to "liquidator" deaths - conflicting with the many hundreds of references, for instance, in the UNSCEAR report to the contrary, 115,000 deaths over a 25 year period is chump change compared to the annual deaths from dangerous fossil fuels.

That may sound cold, but it's a reality.

The fact that car CULTists couldn't give a rat's ass that 115,000 deaths wouldn't cover half a decade of deaths from automobile accidents in the US is also telling.

If you don't know what you're talking about, engage in selective attention.

[NobleCynic]

17. Your convoluted, insulting, poorly written argument is sadly correct

Tone. Really. Tone. You and the anti-nukes will never see eye to eye on the issue. Got it. But to anyone who is undecided who stumbles across this forum, you damage your own cause. This the internet and jackassery is most often interpreted, rightly so in most cases, as a blowhard covering for the fact that he is wrong, and that is exactly how someone who isn't an expert in subjects being discussed will interpret every single one of your posts.

Try making your arguments simple, short, and respectful.

"Compared to fossil fuels, both nuclear and wind inflict cause statistically insignificant number of deaths. Economics, reliability, and ease of scaling the production up to the necessary levels to actually effect change are the only topics we should be concerned with."

Done and done.

Not so hard is it? Honestly, I'm tired of you giving nuclear energy a terrible image on this board.

[kristopher]

18. Economics, reliability, and ease of scaling the production up to the necessary levels...

"Economics, reliability, and ease of scaling the production up to the necessary levels to actually effect change are the only topics we should be concerned with.""

You are absolutely correct with one addition, we also need to factor in the environmental factors. Nnadir's frustration comes into play because he doesn't want to accept the answers to those areas of evaluation because nuclear fails to compare favorably to renewable energy and efficiency.

[TheWraith]

19. Or his frustration is due to the faith-based preaching of people who don't understand math.

Or engineering. Or the fact that when you cite scientifically biased studies by people who set out to "prove" a given conclusion by twisting the numbers, it invalidates the data.

[kristopher]

20. No, it is because his chosen technology is inferior.

If he had a case he could make it with data and reason instead of the head spinning claims that are ALWAYS his product.

Ex: We haven't built out renewables yet so that proves renewables can't do the job. or an "analysis" of wind turbine longevity that disregards data like swaps to up-size the farm's output by treating the removed turbines as having been retired even though the source of his data indicate the removed turbines are being put into use elsewhere.

That is what his argumentation consists of - deception. And you for example, have you finally accepted that nuclear is NOT $1500/kw yet?

[TheWraith]

21. Coming from someone who repeatedly post inaccurate papers as if they were relevant...

...even when they have absolutely nothing to do with the question at hand... claims of spin are a bit dubious.

Particularly when you use the exact same methods to claim that nuclear power isn't effective--except that we haven't been building any nuclear power in the last 30 years, while we have been building renewables, and wind/solar still provide less than one percent of all energy use in the United States. Rate of growth means fuck all when we're looking at a total percentage increase that would have us dependent on coal for the next 100 years or more.

[Statistical]

2. I will trust NCI, Heath Dept, Acaedemy of Sicence and Engineers & American Cancer Institute

In 1990 the United States Congress requested the National Cancer Institute to conduct a study of cancer mortality rates around nuclear plants and other facilities covering 1950 to 1984 focusing on the change after operation started of the respective facilities.
Conclusion: no link in cancer rates to nuclear plants

In 2000 the University of Pittsburgh studied heightened cancer deaths in people living within 5 miles of plant at the time of the Three Mile Island accident.
Conclusion: No increase in cancer death among people living within 5 miles of a plant

In 2000 the Illinois Public Health Department conducted study on childhood cancer rates in counties with nuclear plants compared to those in counties without nuclear plants.
Conclusion: No statistical abnormality in childhood cancer rates related to nuclear plants.

In 2001 the Connecticut Academy of Sciences and Engineering conducted study on level of radiation emissions from Connecticut Yankee Nuaclear Power Plant.
Conclusion: Radiation emissions were below background radiation.

In 2002 the American Cancer Society investigated cancer clusters around nuclear plants.
Conclusion: no link between plant proximity and cancer clusters. The ACI noted that cancer clusters do regulary occur due to unrelated reasons.

In 2001, the Florida Bureau of Environmental Epidemiology reviewed claims of increased cancer rates in counties with nuclear plants.
Conclusion: Using same data as the claimants, they observed no abnormalities in counties based on proximity to nuclear plant.

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/tooth-fairy.html

I guess these groups (many who devote their lives to treating and eradicating cancer) also join the list of "nuclear shills".

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. Some light reading regarding Three Mile Island

http://www.ratical.com/radiation/KillingOurOwn/KOO14.html

...

He also pointed out a crucial shortcoming in the method of calculating estimated doses from a nuclear accident. An average population dose had been set by estimating how much radiation had been released and making calculations around the two million people in the fifty-mile radius around TMI. But, he said, the winds during the most crucial hours of the accident--when most of the radiation was released--generally headed to the west, northwest, and north. Thus the real doses were impacting not the vast surrounding population, but the people specifically in the path of the plume. And as Chairman Joseph Hendrie had confirmed on March 30, in the midst of the accident, the doses to individual areas where the plume touched the ground were "husky" and in the range of 120 millirems per hour and more, quantities easily large enough to cause severe damage to fetuses in the womb.

Sternglass now charged that the doses had in fact impacted people in the path of the plume, and with visible effect. Syracuse, Rochester, and Albany had all received windblown doses from the plant, he said, and had suffered rising infant deaths. A preliminary study by the Canadian journal Harrowsmith indicated a possibly similar pattern emerging among infants born at eastern Ontario and western Quebec hospitals, due to radiation from nearby Nine Mile Point.

In December of 1979, Sternglass carried his conclusions much further. In a paper delivered to the Fifth World Congress of Engineers and Architects at Tel Aviv, he said that data from the U.S. Bureau of Vital Statistics showed that there were "242 (infant) deaths above the normally expected number in Pennsylvania and a total of 430 in the entire northeastern area of the United States," a rise of clear statistical significance. The linkage with TMI was clear because "large amounts of radioactive Iodine-131 were released from the plant" and the peak of infant mortality came within a matter of months thereafter. The greatest rises took place near the plant, with effects decreasing as a function of distance away from Harrisburg.

He backed up his case by analyzing the amount of radiation to which pregnant women downwind might have been subjected. Accepting minimum official estimates, Sternglass calculated that the doses of radioactive I-131 alone could have been on the order of one hundred millirems to individual pregnant women in the path of the plume. Such doses, he said, were clearly capable of causing rises in infant mortality.

Using federal statistics, Sternglass then demonstrated that Pennsylvania's infant death rate in July was the highest of any state east of the Mississippi that month (except for Washington, D.C.), although Pennsylvania usually has one of the lowest rates in the nation. He went on to say that a similar rise was evident in infant-mortality rates in northern New England--where wind had carried fallout from the plant--as opposed to southern New England, where it had not.

...

[kristopher]

9. Did you even read the OP?

1) The number of fatalities associated strictly with the nuclear fuel chain (excludes major accidents) is 0.69/TWh (The Meaning Of Results: Comparative Risk Assessments OF Energy Options). The 0.69 deaths/TWh represents 0.04/TWh in OCCUPATIONAL fatalities AND 0.65/TWh in PUBLIC fatalities.
http://www.informaworld.com/index/02X48X98DVPW7U96.pdf

2)Gipe, (2006, 2009) finds that the number derived from considering ALL KNOWN FATALITIES ASSOCIATED WITH WIND (including incidents that strain credulity to attribute them to the technology) as of 2009 is 0.07/TWh. . Also, there is a very strong case to be made for the position that this already low number hugely exaggerates the actual risks associated with the wind industry.
http://www.wind-works.org/articles/BreathLife.html

They list their references and I can't find anything you could possibly object to.

[Statistical]

10. Your first link doesn't work.

Once again I will trust CDC, American Cancer Society, Cancer Institute, Dept of Health etc...

over some no-name study which you didn't even link properly and isn't available for public viewing.

[kristopher]

11. That sounds a lot like sour grapes... IAEA is a fairly reputable organization, isn't it?

The meaning of results: Comparative risk assessments of energy options

Wilson, R; Holland, M; Rabl, A; Dreicer, M

IAEA Bulletin , vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 14-18, 1999

Significant progress has been made in both the development of the techniques of comparative risk assessment, and in the use and interpretation of their results. This is particularly so for the assessment of options for electricity generation and transport. The results have become a useful aid to decision-making, though they often need to be integrated with other social, political, and economic issues before any decision may be made. The main controversies for comparative risk assessment concern global warming for fossil fuels; catastrophic accidents, particularly for nuclear and large hydropower plants; and high-level radioactive waste disposal. These issues involve technical and complex social and political questions. However, comparative risk assessment should provide information in a transparent manner so the limitations and strengths of results are correctly understood.

[kristopher]

12. So is the IAEA a reputable source or not?

[kristopher]

13. Buehler? Buehler?...

[Kalun D]

16. Corporate Backed

""CDC, American Cancer Society, Cancer Institute, Dept of Health etc""

oh yeah, all corporate backed, we sure can trust the corporations to do what right for the peons, yeah dawg!!!!!

[TheWraith]

24. Uh, the CDC is a US Government facility. So is the Dept. of Health and Human Services.

So is the National Cancer Institute.

The American Cancer Society is a public charity with donor disclosures.

Paranoia and fearmongering FAIL.

[Kalun D]

25. Revolving Door

There's a revolving door between the two.

they're all conventional corporate medicine

[TheWraith]

27. Paranoia, conspiracy theories, random factless accusations... thanks for admitting you're wrong. nt

[Merchant Marine]

3. Let's cite Chernobyl, a Soviet designed and built abortion of a plant,

The reactor was moderated by flammable graphite, the control mechanism for the rods was horribly out of date for the 1980s, and the Soviets built it without a containment building to save money. A contemporary western containment building would have kept all of the contamination localized inside the plant. Every death from Chernobyl can be placed squarely at the feet of the original builders who chose to omit a critical safety feature to save money.

It's worth noting that only one reactor blew up at the Chernobyl NPP, and that the other three kept running. The last reactor was shut down in 2000, without any disaster or release of nuclear material.

Honestly, if you cite Chernobyl in an attempt to discredit the US nuclear power industry you are grasping at straws. No US power plant was ever designed anywhere near as poorly as Chernobyl. for starters, they're all water-moderated and have containment buildings over the reactor.

[kristopher]

5. That is a strawman

I'm well aware of the nature of the technological failure involved and the fact that it isn't going to be replicated. However anyone that limits the lessons learned from Chernobyl to that one item is, frankly, stupid as a tree stump.

The fact is that Chernobyl demonstrates concretely the scale of failure that is associated with nuclear power. We also see the range of issues associated with such failure and the time scale that is involved in tracking the consequences. Then there is the secrecy and disinformation associated with the consequences. Even today the nuclear industry shills routinely say that only 500 deaths are attributable to Chernobyl.


In this specific case, the purpose of bringing it up was twofold; first the quote mortality numbers associated with wind include all deaths. The mortality numbers associated with nuclear do not, they exclude any reference to past or potential future deaths. So it is pertinent to note that fact. If we strip out the deaths much higher rate of fatalities that occured in the early days of wind the rate drops from .07 d/TWh to <0.013 d/TWh.

The second is that the issue of such large scale failures isn't addressed at all in the estimates for nuclear.

I think I was very fair.

[joshcryer]

6. LOL!

I'm well aware of the nature of the technological failure involved and the fact that it isn't going to be replicated.

The fact is that Chernobyl demonstrates concretely the scale of failure that is associated with nuclear power.

:rofl:

HAHAHA

Thanks, made my day.

[kristopher]

7. Glad that the death of hundreds of thousands amuses you so much.

[joshcryer]

14. I'm not glad that you use tens of thousands of deaths as a political tool.

[kristopher]

15. The risk of a failure on the scale of Chernobyl is real.

It is therefore appropriate to include discussion of that reality when we are weighing the costs and benefits of various energy technologies. However laughing about the deaths and making false statements that diminish the number of actual deaths is a totally different matter.
The recent article published in the New York Academy of Sciences states very clearly that evidence supports several hundreds of thousands of deaths. If you have a valid rebuttal then offer it, otherwise your act of fabricating a false number is rather reprehensible.

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
Volume 1181 Issue Chernobyl
Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, Pages 31 - 220

Chapter II. Consequences of the Chernobyl Catastrophe for Public Health

Alexey B. Nesterenko a , Vassily B. Nesterenko a ,† and Alexey V. Yablokov b
a
Institute of Radiation Safety (BELRAD), Minsk, Belarus b Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
Address for correspondence: Alexey V. Yablokov, Russian Academy of Sciences, Leninsky Prospect 33, Office 319, 119071 Moscow,
Russia. Voice: [phone]; fax: [phone]. [e-mail]
†Deceased


ABSTRACT

Problems complicating a full assessment of the effects from Chernobyl included official secrecy and falsification of medical records by the USSR for the first 3.5 years after the catastrophe and the lack of reliable medical statistics in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. Official data concerning the thousands of cleanup workers (Chernobyl liquidators) who worked to control the emissions are especially difficult to reconstruct. Using criteria demanded by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) resulted in marked underestimates of the number of fatalities and the extent and degree of sickness among those exposed to radioactive fallout from Chernobyl. Data on exposures were absent or grossly inadequate, while mounting indications of adverse effects became more and more apparent. Using objective information collected by scientists in the affected areas—comparisons of morbidity and mortality in territories characterized by identical physiography, demography, and economy, which differed only in the levels and spectra of radioactive contamination—revealed significant abnormalities associated with irradiation, unrelated to age or sex (e.g., stable chromosomal aberrations), as well as other genetic and nongenetic pathologies.

In all cases when comparing the territories heavily contaminated by Chernobyl's radionuclides with less contaminated areas that are characterized by a similar economy, demography, and environment, there is a marked increase in general morbidity in the former.

Increased numbers of sick and weak newborns were found in the heavily contaminated territories in Belarus, Ukraine, and European Russia.

Accelerated aging is one of the well-known consequences of exposure to ionizing radiation. This phenomenon is apparent to a greater or lesser degree in all of the populations contaminated by the Chernobyl radionuclides.

This section describes the spectrum and the scale of the nonmalignant diseases that have been found among exposed populations.

Adverse effects as a result of Chernobyl irradiation have been found in every group that has been studied. Brain damage has been found in individuals directly exposed—liquidators and those living in the contaminated territories, as well as in their offspring. Premature cataracts; tooth and mouth abnormalities; and blood, lymphatic, heart, lung, gastrointestinal, urologic, bone, and skin diseases afflict and impair people, young and old alike. Endocrine dysfunction, particularly thyroid disease, is far more common than might be expected, with some 1,000 cases of thyroid dysfunction for every case of thyroid cancer, a marked increase after the catastrophe. There are genetic damage and birth defects especially in children of liquidators and in children born in areas with high levels of radioisotope contamination.

Immunological abnormalities and increases in viral, bacterial, and parasitic diseases are rife among individuals in the heavily contaminated areas. For more than 20 years, overall morbidity has remained high in those exposed to the irradiation released by Chernobyl. One cannot give credence to the explanation that these numbers are due solely to socioeconomic factors. The negative health consequences of the catastrophe are amply documented in this chapter and concern millions of people.

The most recent forecast by international agencies predicted there would be between 9,000 and 28,000 fatal cancers between 1986 and 2056, obviously underestimating the risk factors and the collective doses. On the basis of I-131 and Cs-137 radioisotope doses to which populations were exposed and a comparison of cancer mortality in the heavily and the less contaminated territories and pre- and post-Chernobyl cancer levels, a more realistic figure is 212,000 to 245,000 deaths in Europe and 19,000 in the rest of the world. High levels of Te-132, Ru-103, Ru-106, and Cs-134 persisted months after the Chernobyl catastrophe and the continuing radiation from Cs-137, Sr-90, Pu, and Am will generate new neoplasms for hundreds of years.

A detailed study reveals that 3.8–4.0% of all deaths in the contaminated territories of Ukraine and Russia from 1990 to 2004 were caused by the Chernobyl catastrophe. The lack of evidence of increased mortality in other affected countries is not proof of the absence of effects from the radioactive fallout. Since 1990, mortality among liquidators has exceeded the mortality rate in corresponding population groups.

From 112,000 to 125,000 liquidators died before 2005—that is, some 15% of the 830,000 members of the Chernobyl cleanup teams. The calculations suggest that the Chernobyl catastrophe has already killed several hundred thousand human beings in a population of several hundred million that was unfortunate enough to live in territories affected by the fallout. The number of Chernobyl victims will continue to grow over many future generations.

[TheWraith]

23. Not with any modern system, it's not.

Your comparison of SAFE, non-Soviet nuclear power with Chernobyl is similar to saying that because World War I killed tens of millions of people, it's too dangerous for any country to have an army or national guard. You'd comparing apples and artificial flowers.

[TheWraith]

22. That design would have sent a qualified nuclear engineer running for the hills.

For good reason. If Chernobyl had been built with a US-spec containment building, there would have been no release of radiation. Of course if it had been built to US spec, the core would never have exploded, either.

[bananas]

8. k&r nt

[AtheistCrusader]

26. What about JUST in the US?

Or how about JUST in France or Japan?

Not much impressed by the safety record of Soviet Russia, not is it a reflection on the COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR INDUSTRY.

Keep in mind, we have between 10-15 reactors a few minutes upwind of Seattle at any given time, and they are MOBILE. Lincoln Power and Light. Ohio Power and Light, etc.

[kristopher]

28. If we follow a nuclear scenario for power instead of renewables

The number of nuclear plants required globally would increase to nearly from the current 500 to nearly 10,000 (more than 50% of anticipated demand but because of geographic distribution of demand it would be difficult to do it with fewer IMO).

Do you really think the safety record of the US, Japan, and France would anticipate what would occur?

[AtheistCrusader]

29. Well, I don't advocate strictly nuclear power, but

Yes, It think the safety record could be maintained. It would be massively expensive, but the benefits are so far reaching, it's insane.

[kristopher]

30. Corruption, greed, incompetence?

Not a fricking chance that "the safety record could be maintained." That is, not unless you want to add Chernobyl into that record....

Since you admit that it would be massively expensive, why would you endorse it. Renewable energy can deliver the same electrons cheaper, sooner and safer.

If you deny that then you need to bring some strong evidence to the table because it is universally accepted as fact. I have never seen a comprehensive analysis that shows renewables cannot deliver the goods.

Never.

Not one.