Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: The Safest Way
Message-ID: <5974@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 17-Sep-85 14:06:33 EDT
Article-I.D.: utzoo.5974
Posted: Tue Sep 17 14:06:33 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 17-Sep-85 14:06:33 EDT
References: <1386@utcsri.UUCP> <5952@utzoo.UUCP> <820@water.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 48

>	It never ceases to amaze me how certain groups manage to reconcile
>	the view that, for example, acid rain deserves more study because
>	it "really isn't well enough understood," yet dismiss out of
>	hand concerns of environmentalists over the effects of
>	continuing low-level exposure to radioctive material in the
>	air we breath or the foods we eat.

Note two things.  (1) Much of the acid rain comes from coal-burning
power plants, the major alternative to nuclear power.  (2) There is
low-level radioactivity in everything and always has been; natural
radioactivity is everywhere.

>	...Is "deaths/gigawatt-hour" during construction,
>	operation, ...? 

Both, together.  You cannot get power without operating; you cannot
operate without first constructing.  Look at the numbers, not the rhetoric.
Don't forget to count deaths in coal mines and in coal transportation.
(Uranium mines and uranium transportation aren't 100% safe either, but
they are dealing with vastly smaller quantities of material for the same
net power output, hence have vastly fewer deaths per gigawatt-hour.)

>	... Nuclear power plants *can* be expected to leak.

Dumps for stack-scrubber waste from coal-burning plants can, and do, leak.

>	We *do not*, at present, have feasible means for long term storage
>	of waste...

Actually, we do:  the obstacles are political, not technical.  Dig out
the technical references if you don't believe me.  There is some dispute
over which method is best, but the problem is definitely manageable.
The corresponding problem for stack-scrubber wastes is far worse, because
of the vastly greater volume and the almost total lack of concern about it.

>	To spout platitudes about
>	the safety of nuclear power versus other methods of generation
>	in the name of scientific objectivity is intellectual sleaze
>	in the extreme.

Who's spouting platitudes now?  How *else* should we compare different
methods of power generation, than on the basis of which ones kill the
fewest people per unit of output?  Accusations of "intellectual sleaze",
imputations of views I do not hold on acid rain, phrases like "wonderful
bit of bafflegab", are hardly signs of scientific objectivity.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry