One picture is worth oh, about 4,000 words.

[wtmusic]

[peace13]

1. Tell that to the folks in Japan.

Tell that to the folks in the US as the radiation floats across the continent and sinks into the soil and aquifers!!

[Nederland]

3. How many people died from the Fukushima accident? (nt)

[peace13]

4. Too soon to tell but...

the children walking through radioactive dust on the playground is not a good sign! Really? Unfortunately time will tell.

[wtmusic]

38. The children living downwind from coal plants who get cancer

end up just as dead. And there are many, many more.

[peace13]

42. I will not enter a contest about two forms of energy that kill people.

Let's get off of the dirty stuff and invest in renewable sources including passive design. This will create a better world for all. Dirty corporations kill that is a proven fact!

[wtmusic]

44. By not aggressively investing in new, safe nuclear we're passively killing people.

The gulf between what renewables can provide, and what the world needs, is getting wider every day. What makes up the difference? Energy sources that are proven to kill people at a rate 4,000 times that of others, only because they're cheaper and more accessible (not to mention, they're very quickly sending the Earth's climate to hell). They're taking the tops off of mountains and dumping toxic waste into streams. They're pumping toxic chemicals into the ground which show up in your drinking water.

It would be great to have energy that doesn't involve risk, but that's not realistic. Renewables can't get the job done; and wishing harder won't help.

So if one realistic energy choice involves killing one person, and another 4,000 people, which do you choose? :shrug:

[kristopher]

45. That is false. Nuclear is more expensive, slower to build and less safe than alternatives.

You say, "renewables cant get the job done".

Prove it. Eleven professional organizations of more than 1,200,000 engineers say, "We have the technology to slash global emissions" and they are referring to renewables - NOT nuclear. The ONLY arguing points for nuclear are falsehoods manufactured out of whole cloth

The technology needed to cut the world’s greenhouse gas emissions by 85% by 2050 already exists, according to a joint statement by eleven of the world’s largest engineering organisations.

...The statement says that generating electricity from wind, waves and the sun, growing biofuels sustainably, zero emissions transport, low carbon buildings and energy efficiency technologies have all been demonstrated. However they are not being developed for wide-scale use fast enough and there is a desperate need for financial and legislative support from governments around the world if they are to fulfil their potential.

...“While the world’s politicians have been locked in talks with no output, engineers across the globe have been busy developing technologies that can bring down emissions and help create a more stable future for the planet.

“We are now overdue for government commitment, with ambitious, concrete emissions targets that give the right signals to industry, so they can be rolled out on a global scale.”

http://www.imeche.org/news/archives/11-09-23/Future_Climate_2_We_have_the_technology_to_slash_global_emissions_say_engineers.aspx


o The Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE) (UK)
o The Institution of Engineers (India)
o The Association of German Engineers (VDI) (Germany)
o The Japanese Society of Mechanical Engineers (JSME) (Japan)
o The Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers (APESMA) (Australia)
o The Danish Society of Engineers (IDA) (Denmark)
o The Civil Engineer Organisation of Honduras (CICH) (Honduras)
o The Swedish Association of Graduate Engineers (Sweden)
o The Norwegian Society of Engineers (NITO) (Norway)
o The Finnish Association of Graduate Engineers (TEK) (Finland)
o The Union of Professional Engineers (UIL) (Finland)

These organizations represent over 1.2 million engineers.


See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=314550&mesg_id=316277

It gives a glimpse of why the speed of deployment is important.

[TheMadMonk]

6. That includes the folks in Japan. And Chernobyl.

And quite possibly even Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well.

Yes the amounts being detected in some places away from the site are in excess of permissible levels. However, you fail to acknowledge that, regulatory, permissible levels are hundreds of times below the lowest threshold for which a clear statistical link between exposure and mortality can be established. Nor, all else being equal, that those levels will decline rapidly over time.

As for the seaborn hit America is about to take. Those levels are not going to come within a bulls roar of permitted levels. They will barely break the threshold of detectability. But for purposes of hysteria all figures will be breathlessly reported as a multiplier of some other figure.

Cutting soot emmisions from trucks in half would have a far bigger impact on global mortality than eliminating every single nuclear plant on the planet.

Replacing every single coal fired boiler on the planet with nuclear reactors no better than those built over a quarter of a century ago would save close to 100,000 lives per year.

Using modern reactor designs instead might save all of 10 more. What they would save is billions in construction and operational costs.

[peace13]

20. Living in the shadow of Davis Bessie in OHio...

I hear you but have trouble computing how clean nuclear power is. A crack here a crack there, exposure limits raised, maintenance schedules changed...all of this to profit the corp. Go figure. Wind, solar, passive forms of energy. Why not try to invest in things that have less potential of becoming a radioactive dump. To say nothing of the waste from these so called clean reactors.

Have you heard the news in Idaho Falls, ID this week. Don't worry, it's contained in the building and only workers got dirty.
Link here http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/08/us-nuclear-lab-idaho-idUSTRE7A77QW20111108

[Fumesucker]

2. Death rate per watts produced from solar...

[TheMadMonk]

8. Falls during installation. Improper installation.

My uncle was actually killed (electrocution) by his solar power system, so I know from personal experience the answer is non-zero. As per RC's post, solar is 3 times as deadly as wind and 11 times as deadly as nuclear.

Of course that won't stop me putting one up on the roof myself as soon as I get around to putting a new roof up there to put it on.

[Fumesucker]

9. You have the same sorts of deaths in nuclear too..

And you could be electrocuted by any form of electrical generation that's over about 24 volts, I'd be very surprised if that is added into the nuclear statistics.

The three forms of lying, lies, damn lies and statistics.

I'm old enough to remember "electricity too cheap to meter" claims about nuclear power, fool me once, etc..

My objections to nuclear wouldn't be nearly as strong if I thought that the plants would be strictly regulated to a very high standard, that's clearly not the case because the regulators have largely been captured by the industry.

I mean the Vermont Yankee plant had a fucking cooling tower collapse in 2007, that tells me that maintenance was pathetically inadequate.

[TheMadMonk]

13. Sometimes I think a lot of those numbers get rolled in just...

...to give something to count.

I strongly suspect construction deaths are included for nukes, as would on site electrocutions.

I never believe advertising hype, especially for the Mk I. More fool you if you did.

Ever improving design (instead of the 40 odd years of near stagnation seen since TMI), WOULD have brought costs down significantly.

With no prospect of license renewal, and even less of a fresh license for a new reactor entirely, where is the incentive to do more maintenance than is necessary to see out the remaining life out of the existing license. I predicted some time ago, that if nuclear power is blocked, the operators will almost certainly walk away from the reactors when their licenses expire.

[Fumesucker]

14. If nuclear power was really so safe they wouldn't need the Price Anderson act..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act

How does the layman separate advertising hype from actual facts in this matter, I wouldn't trust the industry or the government as far as I could throw both of them combined.

Does wind or solar have an equivalent to the PA act, I can't find anything with a cursory Google search?

[wtmusic]

21. Price-Anderson hasn't paid out a dime in its 53-year existence

and airlines got the same assistance with insurance coverage after 9/11. It's based more on public perception than statistics.

[kristopher]

23. Then get rid of it and let the nuclear industry pay for their own insurance like wind and solar.

You know, of course, that they can't because 1) insurance is required and 2) no nuclear plant could afford it because the potential losses are far too large to insure.

Low probability doesn't mean low risk.

Risk is a blend of both probability and degree of loss. See nuclear industry in Ukraine and Japan.

BTW the actual performance of the nuclear industry is proviing their projections of core damage accidents to be as big a fairy tale as their cost and time-to-build projections. Core damage has variously been predicted to only occur 1 in 20,000 to 1 in 50,000 years of reactor operations. In fact, real world performance has seen a core damage accident every 8 years on average since 1970.

[NickB79]

30. Are you sure that's how those numbers are calculated?

"Core damage has variously been predicted to only occur 1 in 20,000 to 1 in 50,000 years of reactor operations. In fact, real world performance has seen a core damage accident every 8 years on average since 1970."

Years of reactor operations is usually stated as a sum of all reactors operating in a given year. For example, 100 reactors in the US, operating for one year, gives you 100 years of reactor operation. Wouldn't saying there's a core damage accident every 8 years of reactor operation mean appoximately one dozen core damage events every year in the US alone?

[kristopher]

36. I'm sure of the numbers, yes; but I can see the confusion.

That is 8 calender years, not reactor years. To avoid tracking the total number of reactors in operation during the period let's use a static 400 reactors in service for 80% of the time (international average) = 320 reactor years per year X 8 years between core damage = 1:2560 reactor years.

Does that sound right?

I'm pretty sure that if you look just at Japan, the number drops to 1:500 reactor years.

[NickB79]

41. Thanks, that makes more sense

I wonder how the numbers would look if all the military nuclear reactors were included in the mix. On one hand, it would add a lot more reactor-years to the average (which would look good for nuclear supporters) but then you'd also have to include the loss of several nuclear subs over the years (which would back up those opposed to nuclear).

[txlibdem]

31. Let each power source pay for the actual damage it causes. Agreed.

As long as you include coal, oil and fracking natural gas as well.

Do that and you'll never need a carbon tax. Those businesses will be litigated out of existence once fossil fuels become responsible for the deaths and hospitalizations and environmental damage they cause.

[wtmusic]

34. Might as well include wind and solar - both depend on coal for baseload

meaning either is far deadlier than nuclear by itself.

[txlibdem]

35. Technically, it's natural gas but I get what you are saying.

But we needn't worry. The anti-nuke posters will never take that deal... it would mean the end of fossil fuels forever.

[kristopher]

37. Great concept but can't be done

Accurately defining, policing and collecting for the externalities is impossible. That is why we use approaches like cap and trade or carbon taxes.

[txlibdem]

43. We, in America, do NOT use cap and trade nor carbon taxes

We use litigation. That is what I am proposing. Massive class action lawsuits on behalf of every parent who had to pay a doctor's bill due to their child's asthma attack, on behalf of everyone who suffered a heart attack, on behalf of everyone who wanted to go fishing but couldn't because coal power plants have polluted all the rivers and lakes in our once great nation.

Class action lawyers --pay attention-- there is a gold mine awaiting you by suing the fossil fuels perpetrators. Go Get Em!

[RC]

5. Deaths per TWh for all energy sources: Rooftop solar power is actually more dangerous than Chernobyl

Coal – USA                         15
Oil                                36  (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas                         4  (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass                    12
Peat                               12
Solar (rooftop)                     0.44 (less than 0.1% of
world energy)
Wind                                0.15 (less than 1% of
world energy)
Hydro                               0.10 (europe death rate,
2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao)    1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and
171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear                             0.04 (5.9% of world
energy)

http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html

[hr]
How dangerous is nuclear power? Not very

Coal, oil and even solar power all kill more people than the
much-maligned nuclear.

The continuing disaster at Fukushima and the upcoming 25th
anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster has focused criticism on
the safety of nuclear power. But how dangerous is nuclear
energy?

Not very dangerous at all, is the answer. The following image
(taken from here) shows the death rate of each energy source
per watt produced. (See Opening Post)
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/03/nuclear-power-coal-produced

[kristopher]

11. How many times are you going to use that trumped up comparison?

Solar: the stats are simply fabrications; numbers made up out of whole cloth by the author of the blog.

Wind: Cumulative deaths per TWh for wind isn't 0.15/TWh. Using the same source cited by the NBF blogger it is clearly 0.07/TWh and has been for several years. The author at nextbigfuture had to go back to the year 2000 to get the 0.15 number. That is simply lying.

Readers can download the spreadsheet themselves: http://wind-works.org/articles/DeathsDatabase.xls
The per TWh tab is labeled "deaths by year". It is also worth reading the "deathsdatabase" tab to see that the nature of the deaths includes everything that could possibly be related.

Similar gimmicks are used to under-report the deaths related to nuclear power. Again using the author's source, the Externe-E analysis. It's available at this link where it is the third graphic of the 4; just click any of them for a close up:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html

Note that the 0.04 quoted for nuclear is strictly "occupational fatalities" even though the more comprehensive number of "public fatalities", right next to it, is 0.65. The author uses a "piublic fatalities" number for wind - that is what Gipe tracks. He also goes to extra effort to use it for coal (see below). So what possible logic can justify choosing the far lower "occupational fatalities" only for nuclear except the deliberate intent to present fraudulent data?

Also, if you go to the Externe analysis and read it you'll find that Chernobyl is excluded from the total. To make up for that the author takes the most conservative estimate available - 50 deaths - and notes it as an aside. See study below for most recent independent study on Deaths to date from Chernobyl.

The source nextbigfuture post also makes available an estimate (from Externe E and others) for the coal fuel chain - the range is 0.04-0.23. In order to push that up the author goes to the trouble of finding and incorporating the deaths from particulate pollution associated with coal. It is a commendable effort but it begs the question of why such diligence wasn't applied across the board.

In short, this blog entry , and its continued use by nuclear industry proponents that know it is a deliberately crafted lie, is one of the reasons I turned against nuclear power in recent years. If you can't trust them on matters so easy to check, how in the hell can you trust them to promote the public welfare when they are shielded by the secrecy shrouding the technology itself?

Chernobyl 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]. [email protected]
†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.

<snip>

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.

[RC]

15. Until you figure out nuclear is not only needed, but safer.

You do not seem to see any difference between a pile of graphite blocks and any of the latest self-regulating technology.
I don't remember you condemning our nuclear fleet by saying we be better off if they were oil, coal or wind powered. How about a solar powered aircraft carrier? Yeah, that'll work... See the problem here? The same problems apply to our national electrical power supply.
I will give you credit for not thinking oar power for our Naval fleet would be good.

[kristopher]

25. So you advocate lying to promote false beliefs about the safety of nuclear power?

[txlibdem]

32. Where's the lie? Only one of omission for not mentioning coal and natural gas.

Fossil fuels and their poison chemical and carbon dioxide emissions are what is killing this planet as we speak. Yet certain posters are on a mission to end zero carbon nuclear power. It makes me wonder what they are thinking...

[txlibdem]

17. Even taking your higher death count, COAL STILL KILLS MORE

.65 for nuclear compared to 35 for coal... coal is 22 times as deadly!!!!

Why do you never call for an end to coal?

Why do you never call for an end to oil?

Your posts have a singular agenda: kill the nuclear power plants. What then???? More coal? More oil? We're killing the planet enough with those poisons as it is.

PS, it is anti-nukers --those who protest any new nuclear power plants being built-- that will guarantee another Fukushima. Murphy's Law applies to ever-aging nuclear power plants just as it does to coal or solar.

[Nihil]

22. He's a natural gas supporter ...

... but it's true that he doesn't seem to be that bothered about coal either ...
:shrug:

[kristopher]

24. Coal and nuclear are two sides of the same centralized generating system

We need to switch to a distributed renewable grid in order to address climate change. Nuclear is nothing but a way for TPTB in energy to preserve their stranglehold on the delivery of electricity. It ranks right down there with "clean coal".

[txlibdem]

29. Which side of the coin is Natural Gas on???

[barbtries]

27. thank you for your post.

nt

[zalinda]

12. Except that nuclear energy killed

an entire city, Chernobyl. Even 25 years after the 'accident', the city still is not safe for humans to go in unprotected. And, even when protected are warned to only stay for a few hours. I saw a crew go in and film there and it was eerie. They went into a hospital, and there were patient charts still on one of the desks. Some plant life has finally started to grow there, but you only see patches. It is absolutely dead silence there, no rustling of vegetation or scampering sounds of animals.

And, the only time I would agree to nuclear, is when they have an absolutely sure fire way to get rid of the nuclear waste, until then it is a stupid gamble. Also, by the time a nuclear plant is built (10 years) it may even be a moot point, as we could have found another form of clean energy.

zalinda

[RC]

16. I saw that same PBS program.

It was quiet because there were no people around. People and their machines are what make 'civilization' noisy. Ever been out in the boonies? It is quiet there also. (I lived 45 years in North Dakota. I know where to go for peace and real quiet.)
There was plenty of healthy wild life there. They know because they trapped and collared wolves and other wild life.
Some plant life??? The place was overgrown with vegetation. There was no bare ground, buildings were cover/hidden under the vegetation.

[johnd83]

7. The only people that benefit from fear of nuclear power are the oil and coal companies

If we had responsibly built reactors 20 years ago we would have abundant, cheap energy. I think that now we can use Thorium reactors with better designs that don't have the potential for a post-shutdown meltdouwn. The Fukishima reactors were extremely old and built before people respected how unstable a reactor could be if designed poorly.

[Fumesucker]

10. I'm old enough to remember "electricity too cheap to meter" boasts about nuclear power..

What, you think I'm going to believe all that crap again from an industry full of proven liars?

ETA: I'm not afraid of nuclear power per se so much as I am shoddy construction, slipshod maintenance and conniving, dishonest management.

[RC]

18. When there is a buck to be made, too cheap to meter? Sure, whatever you say..

That 'boast' about nuclear power makes the whole industry proven liars? Your brush is kinda broad there isn't it?
If you want shoddy construction, slipshod maintenance and conniving, dishonest management, try the oil and coal industry. Compare their safety record to that of nuclear's safety record. It is like comparing ground travel(coal/oil) to airline travel(nuclear). Really, it's a good comparison.

[txlibdem]

19. You are right, but some are immune to facts and truth

All they want is to WIN. To succeed with their own personal agenda, whatever the cost to the world.

The fact-averse anti-nukers out there love to compare brand new solar designs to Fukushima... which was designed in the 1960s... designed 50 years ago!!!

[barbtries]

26. so far. nt

[BridgeTheGap]

28. From Greg Palast

Nuclear plants are cheap until you actually try to build one. Not one of the last 49 nuclear plants cost less than $2 billion apiece. I’m looking down the road at the remainders of the Shoreham nuclear plant which took nearly 20 years to build at a cost of $8 billion – or close to $7,000 per customer it was supposed to supply. When I say “supposed to,” it was closed for safety reasons after operating just one single day.

http://www.gregpalast.com/the-mccain-plan-homer-simpson-without-the-donut/

I need to speak to you, not as a reporter, but in my former capacity as lead investigator in several government nuclear plant fraud and racketeering investigations.

http://www.gregpalast.com/no-bs-info-on-japan-nuclearobama-invites-tokyo-electric-to-build-us-nukes-with-taxpayer-funds/

[wtmusic]

33. Greg Palast is 25-90% full of shit.

Shoreham took "20 years to build"?

"The plant was built between 1973 and 1984 by the Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO), but never operated."

Shoreham cost $8B?

"On May 19, 1989, LILCO agreed not to operate the plant in a deal with the state under which most of the $6 billion cost of the unused plant was passed on to Long Island residents."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoreham_Nuclear_Power_Plant

Anti-nuclear activists using deliberate stalling techniques added $1M/day to Shoreham and the notion that it was closed for "safety reasons" is also BS. It never opened, and was decommissioned after running tests for fears that LI couldn't be evacuated. 8 years x 365 x $1M...about $3B wasted on irrational fears.

Ignorance is why nuclear costs so much.

[Terry in Austin]

39. If we reasoned on the basis of death rates

We wouldn't have a car system.

Seriously, do you think this is going to be persuasive?

[wtmusic]

40. If you'd prefer to ignore death rates

what's your criterion? You've been pretty big on safety lately.