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