Over Time, Nuclear Power Would Kill Fewer People Than Petroleum

The safety of nuclear energy is equal to flying an airplane. On a typical day, life is good and the world is sweet, but when an airplane falls from the sky and you are in it, it only ends in as a gigantic disaster. The same is true of nuclear energy, just ask Japan, Russia, etc..

I am not drinking this cool-aid.

@AnyIcon

You may want to take the time to read up on Helium-3 Fusion and Thorium Fission then.

@Anylcon: Your comment is a perfect exemplar of the psychology of risk misperception. Flying (at least flying in commercial airliners, which the rest of your comment indicates you were talking about) is, by far, the safest mode of transportation. Many times more people are killed, per mile traveled, in automobiles. Bicycling is about 10 times again more likely to get you killed. Motorcycling is about three times again as dangerous as pedal cycling.

We (mis)perceive the risk of airline travel, because every airliner crash becomes a major international news story. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of auto (and cycle) deaths every year, barely rate a mention in the local paper.

The same holds for nuclear power, vs. other energy sources. The *real* risk of a nuclear power disaster is far less than the *(mis)perceived* risk.

If nuclear power was safe, we would not need the Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act.

@Anyclon I have never seen a better comparison. Those occurrences get blown out of proportion because people do not realize the big picture and see that travel by almost any other mode of transportation is inherently more dangerous.

@Him: Yes, people "do not realize the big picture" -- and that includes Anyclon, who refuses to believe that nuclear power is less risky than most other sources of energy. His post was unintentionally ironic.

This coming a day after I read that exposure to smog when pregnant doubles the likelihood of diseases such as spina bifida in newborns.

Fossil fuels are very dirty, even if you ignore CO2 from combustion. I read somewhere that coal fire power plants release more radiation (in the form of radioactive impurities being vaporized) into the atmosphere every year than all nuclear power plants ever (including meltdowns). I don't know how valid that is, but the impurities in fossil fuels are destroying our environment. We used to believe that dilution was the solution to pollution, but we're at such a point in our 'advancement' that our diluted pollutants are reaching toxic levels.

1. Nuclear power plants emit dangerous radiation into the air and water during their DAILY operations.

Cancer-causing radiation such as Iodine-131, Cesium-137, Tritium, Krypton, Strontium...

2. A NEW Gallup Poll says over 70% of Americans want more WIND and SOLAR energy.

3. Hansen and Kharecha and everyone should watch the presentations at the Symposium on the Medical and Ecological Consequences of Fukushima, in which the amount of cancers caused by radiation in our food and in our environment from nuclear meltdowns and nuclear power plants was discussed.

The total amounts of deaths, birth defects, miscarriages, heart attacks, cancers, etc. due to nuclear radiation is in the millions upon millions; far surpassing any deaths that could be caused by any other energy.

That is why nuclear energy is rightly known as the most dangerous energy in the world.

Here is the link to the Symposium:

www.totalwebcasting.com/view/?id=hcf

@ListenUp

1. Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

2. I do agree we shall go for clean renewable energy, however their efficiency is not high enough yet. I think nuclear fission energy will be suitable as a transitional substitution mean while.

3. Let's hope we can have feasible nuclear fusion energy soon.

Why can't they take nuclear fuel rods into space and drop them to burn up in reentry to atmosphere? Seems like a market for all the space pioneers.

@ListenUp The amount of ignorance and misinformation in your comment blows my mind. You've become trapped in a self-feeding bubble of (mis)information, a phenomenon the internet makes possible. So here's a tip - whatever you believe, Google the exact opposite of it and consider what you find as seriously as you do your current beliefs.

You don't seem to realize that there are only TWO events in all of history that actually spread any significant amount of radioactive particles into the atmosphere from nuclear reactors - Chernobyl and Fukushima. 3 mile island caused less extra radiation than you'd get from a cross-country flight.

By contrast, coal-fired power plants release higher quantities of radioactive isotopes directly into the atmosphere than even the oldest nuclear reactors ever did. Just Google "radioactive coal ash" (without quotes) and you'll learn the truth about coal. Not saying Solar and Wind aren't preferable to Nuclear, but I *am* saying Nuclear is by far preferable to filthy coal and oil.

@coachlowe Throw a bunch of nuclear waste into the atmosphere? Do you think "burn up in the atmosphere" means it just vanishes? These are basic atomic elements we're talking about, not blocks of wood. They won't become any less radioactive just by getting a little hot.

The nuclear dream is fading fast.

Solar and amazing energy storage technologies are advancing exponentially. By the time one more nuclear plant is built the materials based energy revolution will change the face of energy production forever

Chernobyl may have caused almost 1 million deaths according to a recent study.

Fukushima is expected by Dr. Helen Caldicott, M.D. to cause at least 1 million deaths by cancer due to radioactivity already released.

If a Magnitude 8 earthquake strikes Japan before a fuel pool dangling 100 feet in the air is secured, the resulting radioactivity is expected to be at least 40 times that of Chernobyl, causing untold millions of cancers across the Northern Hemisphere.

Two Japanese Agencies have issued M8 earthquake alerts.

See the Aesop Institute website for details. If the USA pushes hard, with some luck, much might be done to avoid a nightmare.

A surprisingly possible solar superstorm could cause "hundreds of Fukushimas". See the same website to learn what we can do if we are wise enough to act fast.

Fossil fuels can be replaced much faster than might be imagined. See the same site to understand how and why.Mark

When environmentalists sue nuclear power plants and stop them from proceeding we should sue the environmentalists for killing us.

Imagine if each home and business was energy independent, how much stronger, free-er society would be in the USA and the environment would be cleaner too. ...... nice warm happy sigh.
Dare to DREAM!

One day to be solar is the way to go!

To the (solar and wind are so much better!!!) people, what you need to take a look at is energy density. Yes you could replace every watt of energy production with wind and solar....but you would destroy, cover, and disrupt, 100's millions of acres of forest, deserts, plains lands, mountains, beaches,etc. You can replace hundreds of wind turbines , and square miles of solar farms with one bnuclear power plant. The newest generations of nuclear power plants are some of the most well design, and safest power plants in the world. I think we are up to gen 4 or 5. Fukushima...was gen 2, Chernobyl gen 1. These all had mechanical fail safes, and piss poor back up plans, and redundant systems. MAny of the problems with what happened at fukushima with the water running out and steaming off have been solved. This doesn't even take into account the FLTR or Thorium Reactors, as near to meltdown proof as is possible. And its not new technology, they are using some of the same tech developed for water reactors that has been going on for near a century. Thorium reactors have been proven built since the 50's or 60's...../rant

I just thought I comment one more time, so the same person can click "Reported to site admins", lol.

Apparently I am not allowed a negative opinion again the dangers of nuclear energy and or the positive opinion towards solar power. Who knew?

To the person who clicked "Reported to site admins", I'll just keep posting, one way or another. Take care. ;)

Hansen is a living example of the idea that a chimpanzee randomly typing will occasionally generate something coherent. Nuclear power is a very good thing. However, given his penchant for wildly distorting numbers in his computer models, the estimated number of lives saved, 1.84 million, should be treated with the same credence as virtually every other ridiculous claim he has ever made. He is after all an activist first who has, time and again, subverted science to trumpet his alarmist ideas, including his paranoid delusion that the Bush administration was trying to silence him; a claim the gullible Rebecca Boyle perpetuates unchallenged. This is a man desperately in need of retirement. Too bad his pension will be on the taxpayers dime.

@Onihikage -- Your comment is ill-informed and about as mature as your avatar.

1. A quick trip to wikipedia shows many, many nuclear meltdowns and accidents, such as Santa Susana in California, and the Urals in Russia which spewed tons of radiation over unsuspecting populations.

2. Comparing radiation received from an airplane flight to exposure to nuclear radiation which is inhaled/ingested is a hugely false comparison (so is comparing it to bananas, or radiation from watching TV, etc.)

These comparisons are made by pro-nuclear propagandists to try to minimize the dangers of nuclear radiation.

3. Nuclear radiation is highly dangerous and there is NO SAFE DOSE of nuclear radiation.

Dr. Romeo F. Quijano said this about nuclear radiation:

"The "small" amount of radiation, claimed to be "safe" by authorities, added to our increasingly fragile environment will cause serious harm to the health of human beings and other living organisms all over the world. Radioactive particles, especially Plutonium, Strontium, and Cesium are bioaccumulative, extremely persistent and highly toxic. They travel long distances and will contaminate all regions on earth."

www.abs-cbnnews.com/insights/04/01/11/nuclear-radiation-there-no-safe-dose

4. Dr. Yablokov found one MILLION deaths due to Chernobyl.

5. Dr. Wing found that lung cancers rose dramatically in people exposed to the Three Mile Island radiation plume.

6. Dr. Gould and Dr. Sternglass found a statistically significant increase of one MILLION deaths after Three Mile Island. (See the video "Three Mile Island Revisited" on youtube)

7. Dr. Mangano and Dr. Sherman found an increase in infant mortality in the U.S. after Fukushima.

8. Dr. Mangano also found that in the first 50 weeks after fallout from Japan reached the U.S., hypothyroidism increased 28% increase on west coast.

9. Dr. Gofman did studies on the increases of breast cancer due to nuclear radiation.

10. Even the pro-nuclear World Health Organization says breast cancer and leukemia will increase after Fukushima, and predicts a 70% increase thyroid cancer risk in females exposed to Fukushima radiation as infants.

11. It's not just cancers and death that nuclear radiation causes.

Dr. Wertelecki found teratomos, conjoined twins, mocrophthalmia, NTD, microcephaly, horrible birth defects, and a decrease in cognitive skills due to Chernobyl.

This is just a TINY example of the cancers, deaths, birth and health effects caused by nuclear radiation.

Again, I highly recommend everyone watch the speakers at the Fukushima Symposium to learn more.
www.totalwebcasting.com/view/?id=hcf

The doctors at the Symposium have spent decades studying the effects of nuclear radiation, and their grim analysis is in their presentations.

And nuclear radiation is not just affecting humans.

Animals are showing signs of radiation exposure. Fish have been caught with radiation. An entire species of nails is extinct due to Fukushima. Radiation is being in found in seaweed, zooplankton and sea life in the oceans.
Animal and plant mutations are being found everywhere.

There is no doubt about it.

Man-made nuclear radiation is wreaking havoc on human genetics, human health and our environment.

NEW Gallup Poll:

Americans Want More Energy From Wind, Solar, Gas

"No fewer than two in three Americans want the U.S. to put more emphasis on producing domestic energy using solar power (76%), wind (71%), and natural gas (65%). Far fewer want to emphasize the production of oil (46%) and the use of nuclear power (37%). Least favored is coal, with about one in three Americans wanting to prioritize its domestic production."

www.gallup.com/poll/161519/americans-emphasis-solar-wind-natural-gas.aspx

ListenUp, regardless of the tone of Onihikage's comments, he's exactly right about there being only two nuclear power plant incidents in history that resulted in significant radiation release since the first nuclear power plant went online in 1954.

There have been 68 fatalities in 59 years, 57 of which were from Chernobyl. (Interestingly, no one died from radiation released in the Fukushima Daiichi accident.) That averages out to a little over 1 fatality a year. Can you identify any industry in the world with a better safety record? Not even U.S. commercial aviation, widely acknowledged as the safest form of travel, can match that safety record.

Here's a list of all nuclear power plant accidents:

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

The *4,000 cancer number associated with Chernobyl is the number of cancers--not deaths--attributed to Chernobyl. And the number is more like 6,000; thyroid cancers in children and adolescents. Thyroid cancer is highly treatable and the average 5-year survival rate is about 97%. If it's caught early, as is likely in the Chernobyl-affected area where intensive monitoring has been ongoing, the survival rate is virtually 100%.

This UN Scientific Committee Report on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) published in 2008 says, "there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure two decades after the accident." That's from the WORST nuclear power plant accident in history. See UNSCEAR report (2008) on Chernobyl here:

http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html

As for all of your "references", absolute rubbish. You should be able to figure that out yourself from "Dr. Gould and Dr. Sternglass" claiming a million deaths due to the radiation release from Three Mile Island.

What you're missing in your extremely narrow and warped view on nuclear radiation is balance and perspective. Onihikage was right to call you out on your radiation junk science. Do you know how much radiation was released from Three Mile Island? I'll tell you.

The radiation released resulted in "an average dose of 1.4 mrem to the two million people near the plant. The report compared this with the additional 80 mrem per year received from living in a high altitude city such as Denver. As further comparison, you receive 3.2 mrem from a chest X-Ray – more than twice the average dose of those received near the plant."

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

Do you seriously think a million people die from receiving a chest X-ray? If that were true, chest X-rays would have been abolished long ago by the FDA.

Your claim "3. Nuclear radiation is highly dangerous and there is NO SAFE DOSE of nuclear radiation" is also rubbish. Nuclear radiation is used daily to irradiate foods to prevent spoilage, with no adverse health effect whatsoever. In fact, it saves lives by preventing deadly bacteria from forming. Nuclear radiation is used safely countless times every day in numerous ways in medical and diagnostic procedures on humans; all of which results in the prolonging of life and improving the quality of life for millions of people each year.

The effects of nuclear radiation have been studied carefully for over 60 years and extremely conservative dosage limits set in place to protect the safety of people who work in environments where radiation exposure is commonplace.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission says, "Although radiation may cause cancer at high doses and high dose rates, public health data do not absolutely establish the occurrence of cancer following exposure to low doses and dose rates — below about 10,000 mrem (100 mSv). Studies of occupational workers who are chronically exposed to low levels of radiation above normal background have shown no adverse biological effects."

http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/radiation/health-effects/rad-exposure-cancer.html

Here's a graphic comparison of different levels of radiation dosages:

http://xkcd.com/radiation/

And here's an MIT study from 2012 which suggests that the established long-term radiation dosage limits may be 10 times too conservative due to the way the cancerous effects are measured; not from actual experiments of long-term radiation, but from EXTRAPOLATING the effects from single high-dosage events, like the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima or the exposion at Chernobyl:

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2012/prolonged-radiation-exposure-0515.html

To sum up, do as Onihikage suggests and read up on the remarkable safety of nuclear power and get some perspective on the vast array of other things that pose much greater health risks than nuclear power.

As for the Gallup poll, ListenUp, it says nothing about what forms of energy Americans want to prioritize. It simply shows that Americans want "the country" to produce more energy from all of the sources named.

If you add up the "same emphasis as now" or "more emphasis" results it looks like this:

Solar power: 88%
Wind: 87%
Natural gas: 89%
Oil: 67%
Nuclear power: 65%
Coal: 56%

In other words, generally speaking, Americans want to become energy independent through ALL the resources at our disposal.

http://www.gallup.com/file/poll/161525/Energy_sources_130327.pdf

This is absolutely true and it kills far less people anually then coal.

If you leave your solar panel running in your garage, no one will die. Some benefits to health and the environment are just a better trade off. We need to do a lot more development towards solar power.

Besides another product produces on the side, is JOBS. It takes more people to maintain solar panels, associated power supply systems and power storage systems. These type of jobs are technical in nature and pay better, thereby giving more people a higher level of money and yes medical benefits. And these benefits also apply to wind and hydroelectric power as well.

Solar, wind and hydroelectric systems do not pollute and are not cancer causing and create jobs with medical benefits! People with good paying skill jobs pay taxes too and the government needs it taxes, since it does not know how to balance a budget.