Here is another report on fossil plant impacts:

http://www.catf.us/publications/reports/Dirty_Air_Dirty_Power.pdf

Several methods are used to estimate the health effect from a specific source (e.g., fossil plants). By observing correlations between disease rates and the concentrations of various pollutants, they can estimate the health impact of each one. Then they can determine how much of each pollutant (in a given region) comes from fossil plants. These plants are the majority source for pollutants like SO2 and mercury, and are a signifcicant fraction (~1/2?) the source for fine particulates and others.

Other methods include measuring disease rates in various locations and correlating them with the proximity to a fossil plant (and direction, e.g., downwind). Downwind from the large number of MidWest coal plants, there are higher than average rates reported for many diseases, along with corresponding measurements of increased concentrations of the associated pollutants.

I still take issue with some aspects, e.g. we can monitor the effects of fossil fuel plants because there are a lot more of them, and they are less shrouded in secrecy.

Although I wonder how that lung report can pinpoint the deaths to fossil fuel power plants, and not to other aspects of modern life, for example car use, other chemical production, time spent on railways, in offices etc.

The UN report mentions Russia, Ukraine and Belarus for thyroid cancer, but my friend can trace her thyroid cancer to a trip to Wales (UK) shortly after the incident. 5 of her friends there at the time also have suffered with problems. How many others are not on the UN’s radar? Especially those that didn’t have access to health treatment and died as a result before anyone knew anything about it.

For there is also the issue of obtaining data. I doubt Belarus, Ukraine and Russia know where most of their populations are, let alone whether they have health problems or not. And then actually reporting the problems to the UN, especially in post-Communist times (secrecy, fear etc). And there have been a lot of rumours of France covering up health problems.

I take your point re: improvements in Western reactor design. But I question how many of them we need to build before major problems do start occurring, with waste or accidents or sabotage. Those problems seem remarkably downplayed recently.

Also, the materials for nuclear plants and fuel still need to be mined; the problems of “mining, mountains of waste, polluted water, etc..” exist for nuclear as well.

Both the (US) EPA and the American Lung Association say that fossil plants (mainly coal) cause tens of thousands of deaths per year, in the USA alone.

http://lungaction.org/reports/sota07_protecting1.html

http://www.epa.gov/air/clearskies/benefits.html

Given the rest of the world’s much greater population, and lower levels of pollution control (generally), it is clear that the worldwide toll is in the hundreds of thousands. In fact, the article below by the WHO says that ~2 million die each year from all forms of air pollution (and fossil power plants are known to be a significant fraction of this).

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/oct2006/2006-10-06-01.asp

As for Chernobyl’s impacts, read the offical UN report, which summarizes the results of decades of thorough scientific study:

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

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernobyl.pdf

It is clear (based on common sense) that the maximum consequences from a Western plant accident would be far smaller than Chernobyl. Western reactors are inherently stable, which removes the chance of a massive power spike like Chernobyl. They have no flammible materials in the core, while Chernobyl’s core was made of graphite, which ignited, which in turn freatly increased the transport of radioactive material into the environment. And Finally, they have massive containment domes to contain (or at a minimum, greatly reduce) any release that could occur.

Actually, we do have a historical example of a severe Western plant accident; Three Mile Island. The consequence? No deaths or injuries, and no significant environmental impacts.

Show me your evidence.

Even pessistic, theoretical estimates of Chernobyl’s consequences are ~10,000 eventual premature deaths. The worst conceivable event at a Western plant would be much smaller (more than an order of magnitude).

In contrast, fossil power plants cause hundreds of thousands of premature deaths worldwide, annually, under normal operation. This is in addition to their being the single leading source of CO2 emissions, as well as their having a much larger impact on the environment (mining, mountains of waste, polluted water, etc..).

That is the premise of the whole climate change debate, so I can appreciate where that comes from…

It’s a tail risk, for sure. Coupled with NIMBYism.

Like I said, I could go either way on this issue, although there is always that nagging “what if” doubt. I don’t know, for some reason a nuclear accident just worries me, and it will become more likely with more reactors.

Previous accidents may have been one-offs, but…

I think with the amount of nuclear power in operation today and the safety record experienced, it is a perception rather than a reality when the environmentalists start to cry about these problems.

As far as taking away from renewables, why can we not have both? Surely the demand for energy is there.