Gruesome and horrifying lack of concern.
Accurate, justified description of the vast majority of energy users. We really don't give a you-know-what where the energy comes from, as long as it's there 24/7, on demand.
So - will a peer-reviewed paper, claiming nuclear power has saved 1,840,000 deaths elicit more than a mass shrug of the shoulders and a concealed "So What"? I doubt it!
"...Their numbers come from calculating how many people would have likely died due to air pollution over the years, but didn't, because electricity was created by non-air polluting nuclear power plants instead..."
"...Kharecha and Hansen argue that burning coal over the years that nuclear power has been used as a viable energy source, (since 1971) instead of building nuclear plants would have led to deaths from lung related ailments from both the mining of coal, and burning it to create electricity. They have then used the number of deaths in the past from such ailments to project numbers in the future. They say that if the world would convert to all nuclear power by the middle of this century, 420,000 to 7 million deaths could be prevented. The numbers vary so much because they would depend on which energy source nuclear power would replace. Their overall point is that nuclear energy is much safer than coal—when looking at raw death numbers—and therefore should be seen as a replacement source for electricity generation, rather than as menace that should be abolished..."
No comments:
Post a Comment