For every person killed by nuclear power generation, 4,000 die due to coal

[salvorhardin]

It's far easier to amplify sudden and horrible outcomes than it is to talk about the slow, grinding reality of day to day strife. That's just human nature. Not included in this chart are deaths due to global political instability involving oil fields, deaths from coastal flooding and deaths due to environmental impacts yet unmeasured, all of which skew it even more if you think about it.
From: http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2011/03/the-triumph-of-coal-marketing.html

[msongs]

1. what is the half life of coal waste? nt

[salvorhardin]

5. In the case of radioactive coal fly ash? As long as uranium and thorium.

Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste
By burning away all the pesky carbon and other impurities, coal power plants produce heaps of radiation

At issue is coal's content of uranium and thorium, both radioactive elements. They occur in such trace amounts in natural, or "whole," coal that they aren't a problem. But when coal is burned into fly ash, uranium and thorium are concentrated at up to 10 times their original levels.

Fly ash uranium sometimes leaches into the soil and water surrounding a coal plant, affecting cropland and, in turn, food. People living within a "stack shadow"—the area within a half- to one-mile (0.8- to 1.6-kilometer) radius of a coal plant's smokestacks—might then ingest small amounts of radiation. Fly ash is also disposed of in landfills and abandoned mines and quarries, posing a potential risk to people living around those areas.

Full article: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

[kristopher]

39. That is "special interest science" of the not very good kind.

What is incredible is how much "special interest science" the nuclear industry has produced and where you'll find it.

At the end of this post is a 1997 analysis of the comparison done by the USGS before it was rewritten as a propaganda point to make the nuclear industry appear more benign. The existence of the SA article and its use as a tool to sway public opinion highlights an issue raised by this 2009 article in the Journal of Science and Engineering Ethics. The article questions the method of analysis that is used to support the claim of the nuclear industry that fission is a viable answer to climate change based on the level of associated GHG emissions. Note that the framing in the SA piece is actually a variation of the finding in item (iii) "They (nuclear industry) inconsistently compare nuclear-related GHGE only to those from fossil fuels, rather than to those from the best GHG-avoiding energy technologies". So instead of comparing itself to the technologies it is actually competing against for future market share, here again the comparison is to coal rather than to the available alternatives such as wind and solar.

I'd love to hear the response of the nuclear fans to the information in the Shrader paper on ethics.

Sci Eng Ethics (2009) 15:19–23 DOI 10.1007/s11948-008-9097-y
Data Trimming, Nuclear Emissions, and Climate Change
Kristin Sharon Shrader-Frechette
Abstract

Ethics requires good science. Many scientists, government leaders, and industry representatives support tripling of global-nuclear-energy capacity on the grounds that nuclear fission is ‘‘carbon free’’ and ‘‘releases no greenhouse gases.’’ However, such claims are scientifically questionable (and thus likely to lead to ethically questionable energy choices) for at least 3 reasons.

(i) They rely on trimming the data on nuclear greenhouse-gas emissions (GHGE), perhaps in part because flawed Kyoto Protocol conventions require no full nuclear-fuel-cycle assessment of carbon content. (ii) They underestimate nuclear-fuel-cycle releases by erroneously assuming that mostly high-grade uranium ore, with much lower emissions, is used. (iii) They inconsistently compare nuclear-related GHGE only to those from fossil fuels, rather than to those from the best GHG-avoiding energy technologies.

Once scientists take account of (i)–(iii), it is possible to show that although the nuclear fuel cycle releases (per kWh) much fewer GHG than coal and oil, nevertheless it releases far more GHG than wind and solar-photovoltaic. Although there may be other, ethical, reasons to support nuclear tripling, reducing or avoiding GHG does not appear to be one of them.

Radioactive Elements in Coal and Fly Ash: Abundance, Forms, and Environmental Significance
Introduction
Coal is largely composed of organic matter, but it is the inorganic matter in coal—minerals and trace elements— that have been cited as possible causes of health, environmental, and technological problems associated with the use of coal. Some trace elements in coal are naturally radioactive. These radioactive elements include uranium (U), thorium (Th), and their numerous decay products, including radium (Ra) and radon (Rn). Although these elements are less chemically toxic than other coal constituents such as arsenic, selenium, or mercury, questions have been raised concerning possible risk from radiation. In order to accurately address these questions and to predict the mobility of radioactive elements during the coal fuel-cycle, it is important to determine the concentration, distribution, and form of radioactive elements in coal and fly ash....

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs163-97/FS-163-97.html

[hunter]

21. Half life of most coal toxins: Essentially Forever.

The toxic substances in coal, those that are not radioactive (mercury, other heavy metals, arsenic, scary carcinogenic organic chemicals as old as the coal itself...) those don't go away. They simply get sequestered or diluted.

[TheWraith]

29. Well said.

What people don't realize is that you can reprocess spent nuclear fuel rods, to recycle them, like they do in Europe. But you can't recycle mercury and arsenic out of the air or the water.

[lonestarnot]

2. So far, so check back in a couple of years.

[Maru Kitteh]

24. If every nuke plant on the planet has a meltdown tomorrow it might give coal a run for it's money

Nuclear is a sexy news story - the slow, insidious hand of death that is coal and fossil fuel is very unsexy, old, and un-photogenic.

[me b zola]

28. I hear they are hiring clean up workers at the Japanese plant

Kiss the family good-bye before you leave/.

[Maru Kitteh]

32. I accept serious risk every day, I'm betting Fukushima pays much better.

[lonestarnot]

33. From your logic, you can get on the next bus!

Then the train across the pacific. Snort.

[me b zola]

57. Serious risk vs certain death

No really, I think anyone still advocating for nuclear energy should head to Japan right away. Unless of course you think it is fine for other people to pay with their lives for your beliefs.

[Maru Kitteh]

61. See, that's the problem with people who think like you.

People such as yourself seem to feel the need to slap a label on someone who expresses any sentiment which deviates even a little from your quasi-religious fervent beliefs. The lazy thought process that leads to an "either you're with us, or you're against us" has no exclusive quarter on either the right or the left, but infects both.

I am no proponent of nuclear energy. I am a proponent of the scientific method. I am a proponent of logic which means that I am by nature intolerant of hyperbole. I am a proponent of evidence-based action. I am generally disgusted by fear-mongering and chilling! purple prose.

I am not qualified, but if asked I absolutely would assist with cleanup efforts in Japan. I'm sure I could be of more use to the Japanese people than those who are running about in circles with their panic button stuck on 11.

[NoBlueDogs]

42. Which will kill you faster? That

or working in a coal mine? How many cave-ins are there versus meltdowns? Black lung vs radiation poisoning?

Solar energy, on the other hand, kills no one.

[w8liftinglady]

3. hmmm- maybe you could share this with Smokey Joe Barton

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Joe_Barton

[peace13]

4. So far.............

[tahrir]

6. 1 million from 1 incident, and it is still killing people

Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences)

Written by Russian and Belarus experts, edited and published by the New York Academy of Sciences, the book is Chernobyl : Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment. Drawing from more than 5,000 published articles and studies, the authors’ conclusions about the disaster in the former Soviet Union are authoritative and startling. So far, 1 million people from around the world have already died from Chernobyl radiation, including over 110,000 of the original 830,000 cleanup workers. High doses of radioactive fallout reached much of Europe and the United Kingdom and 750 million people in the Northern Hemisphere received significant contamination. The accident released 200 times more radiation than previously thought, hundreds of times more than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

more...
http://www.amazon.com/Chernobyl-Consequences-Catastrophe-Environment-Sciences/dp/1573317578

dont believe the BS from nuke industry

[jtuck004]

7. Probably shouldn't believe the BS from the NY Academy of Sciences either...

The Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences issue “Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment”, therefore, does not present new, unpublished work, nor is it a work commissioned by the New York Academy of Sciences.

http://www.nyas.org/publications/annals/Detail.aspx?cid=f3f3bd16-51ba-4d7b-a086-753f44b3bfc1

...it was just propoganda.

[tahrir]

12. I find this work more accurate then the BS coming from Nuke Industry

folks who try to downplay this disaster or the impact of uranium and plutonium or their by products are either ignorant or shills for the industry in my mind and deserve to be confronted then ignored.

good day.

[Maru Kitteh]

25. I think you find it fits what you want to believe

Any study that lies about something so simple as it's origin is obviously worthless, but you cling to it because it confirms your bias.

Sad.

[tahrir]

27. I believe what i know to be true

and discount BS coming from the pro nuke industry.

it comes from years of experience of being a citizen in an unregulated toxic capitalist society.

[jtuck004]

48. Of course. It should be treated like a very dangerous substance

whose use is incredibly practical.

If we can ever solve the problems that stem mostly from decisions made by people for reasons
of politics or profit or just stupid we may no longer see these disasters.

[kristopher]

40. The New York Academy of Sciences vouches for the validity of the work

They were assaulted by the nuclear fission industry in an effort to have the paper withdrawn but they rejected those calls and putlished this statement:

NEW YORK—“Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment,” Volume 1181 of Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, published online in November 2009, was authored by Alexey V. Yablokov, of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Alexey V. Nesterenko, of the Institute of Radiation Safety (Belarus), and the late Prof. Vassily B. Nesterenko, former director of the Belarussian Nuclear Center. With a foreword by the Chairman of the Ukranian National Commission on Radiation Protection, Dimitro M. Grodzinsky, the 327-page volume is an English translation of a 2007 publication by the same authors. The earlier volume, “Chernobyl,” published in Russian, presented an analysis of the scientific literature, including more than 1,000 titles and more than 5,000 printed and Internet publications mainly in Slavic languages, on the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster.

The Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences issue “Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment”, therefore, does not present new, unpublished work, nor is it a work commissioned by the New York Academy of Sciences. The expressed views of the authors, or by advocacy groups or individuals with specific opinions about the Annals Chernobyl volume, are their own. Although the New York Academy of Sciences believes it has a responsibility to provide open forums for discussion of scientific questions, the Academy has no intent to influence legislation by providing such forums. The Academy is committed to publishing content deemed scientifically valid by the general scientific community, from whom the Academy carefully monitors feedback.

Let's look at that last part again:
Although the New York Academy of Sciences believes it has a responsibility to provide open forums for discussion of scientific questions, the Academy has no intent to influence legislation by providing such forums.
Translation:
We are not political.



The Academy is committed to publishing content deemed scientifically valid by the general scientific community
Translation:
We published it because it is "content deemed scientifically valid by the general scientific community".

[jtuck004]

49. Spinning, top, spinning round, and round... eom

..."nor is it a work commissioned by the New York Academy of Sciences..."

[kristopher]

55. It doesn't need to be *commissioned* by NYAS to be evaluated by NYAS for validity,

Their statement is perfectly clear.

[jtuck004]

58. Yes, it is clear. They distanced themselves from it after someone had it printed. eom

[salvorhardin]

8. And coal kills 300,000 people every year right now

A think-tank led by former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan says that around 300,000 people die each year from disasters related to climate change.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/29/tech/main5048937.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

Build more coal plants, and maybe you can get it up to half a million per year, every year. And that's not even counting the effects of global warming.

Also see my comment above about radioactive fly ash.

[tahrir]

16. Coal ash is NOT more radioactive than nuclear waste - the OP is BS

Using several research studies as evidence, the story does make a convincing case that, as it says, “the fly ash emitted by a power plant . . . carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.” But that is a completely different statement than fly ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste. What it really means is that radiation emissions to the environment from an operating nuclear power plant actually are lower than the radioactivity emitted from a coal plant through fly ash residues. That’s because the reactor vessel, fuel rods, and any radioactive waste on site are well shielded, whereas fly ash, with small amounts of deadly radioactive substances, simply is emitted into the environment.

http://www.cejournal.net/?p=410

that kind of BS shouldn't be allowed on this site, imho.

[texastoast]

9. All deadly to humans

Thanks for pointing that out.

Stupid, methinks, to do deadly things when a little push in a smarter direction is what we need here.

[MadHound]

10. Again, you are engaging in bipolar, either/or thinking

It isn't a choice between either fossil fuels or nuclear power generation. Green renewables are now fully capable of providing for all our power needs.

[salvorhardin]

11. Again? I wasn't aware of doing it the first time.

I'm simply pointing out the relative risks. Whether fission power is an effective solution or not is a whole other discussion. I think in the short run it is, but right now neither new nuclear plants or alternative sources of energy are getting the funding they need so we all lose. Personally, I'd love to see a mix of solar, wind, and geothermal.

[kristopher]

46. Then why didn't you compare those to coal? nt

[stockholmer]

13. sorry, you are forgetting a little thing called Chernobyl (almost 1 million killed to date)

http://www.counterpunch.org/alvarez08132010.html

The Gift That Keeps Giving
Chernobyl's Million Dead
By ROBERT ALVAREZ

It's been 24 years since the catastrophic explosion and fire occurred at Chernobyl in the Ukraine. The accident required nearly a million emergency responders and cleanup workers. According to a recent report published by the New York Academy of Medicine nearly one million people around the world have died from Chernobyl fallout.

http://www.nyas.org/Publications/Annals/Detail.aspx?cid=f3f3bd16-51ba-4d7b-a086-753f44b3bfc1

Now we are finding that threats to human health and the environment from the radioactive fallout of this accident that blanketed Europe (and the rest of the world to a lesser extent) will persist for a very long time. There is an exclusionary zone near the reactor, roughly the size of Rhode Island (1000sq kilometers), which because of high levels of contamination,people are ostensibly not allowed to live there for centuries to come. There are also "hot spots" through out Russia, Poland Greece, Germany, Italy, UK, France, and Scandinavia where contaminated live stock and other foodstuff continue to be removed from human consumption.

My friends tell me that a growing number of Ukrainians are immigrating to Youngstown, OH ( where I grew up),Cleveland, Chicago, and other Ukrainian-American enclaves because of Chernobyl contamination threats.

Here are a few recent examples:

A fast-growing number of wild boars in Germany are having to be destroyed and disposed as radioactive wastes.

The mammal population in the exclusionary zone near the reactor is declining, despite the absence of humans, indicative of growing radiation damage to fauna and flora.

Wildfires in Russia appear to be spreading high levels of radioactive smoke from Chernobyl.

True to form, governments with major nuclear programs or ambitions are silent and are encouraging the view that it's time we forget about Chernobyl.

Robert Alvarez, an Institute for Policy Studies senior scholar, served as senior policy adviser to the Energy Department's secretary from 1993 to 1999. www.ips-dc.org

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2010/2010-04-26-01.html

http://www.opednews.com/articles/New-Book-Concludes-Cherno-by-Karl-Grossman-100902-941.html

[KamaAina]

56. But none of them were Americans

so for many over here, that means they're not quite as dead. :eyes:

[thereismore]

14. Since when do we measure deaths PER WATT? Fuck this .Nuclear threatens the entire planet.

So does coal, only slower.

[underseasurveyor]

36. Yes!

Well played.

Measure deaths per Watt:thumbsup:

[touche]

15. the problem is

people only pay attention to large, dramatic accidents, not gradual small ones that add up over time.

[tahrir]

17. the OP is BS - Coal ash is NOT more radioactive than nuclear waste

http://www.cejournal.net/?p=410

[Angry Dragon]

18. ........

:popcorn:

[Shiver]

20. You always have so much popcorn.

I brought beer. :toast: I'll share mine if you share yours.

[Angry Dragon]

23. I certainly will share

I do have a preference for English Guinness or tequila

[Rex]

19. Comparing oil and coal to nuclear deaths is a really stupid idea.

Are you prepared to give up your car or cigarettes if you smoke them? I mean, please by all means tell everyone some statistic that could be argued into the ground.

You can die from drinking water too fast...so stop DRINKING THE WATER NOW FOR MOSES SAKE! :crazy:

It is energy sources...I get it, still stupid.

[krispos42]

22. Yeah, except that if a coal plant has a containment failure...

...it doesn't have the potential to harmfully irradiate a city full of people or spread radiation across an area as large as Asia.


And "deaths due to enviromental impacts yet unmeasured"... yeah, about that. The waste from nuclear fission will take several times the whole of human civilization to dissipate. So you'd better have lots of paper; it's going to be a very long form you have to fill out.

[me b zola]

26. I think you should volunteer to be a Kamikaze worker at Fukashima

Then report back to us on how safe it is. K?

[tahrir]

30. The EPA has a 1 MILLION year standard for the 'safe' storage of Nuclear Waste

http://www.slate.com/id/2212792/

what is the requirement for coal, oil, gas, waste?

[AndyTiedye]

31. That's Only the Number That Nuclear Got CAUGHT Killing

Radiation is a silent, invisible, and most often a slow killer, so it usually gets away with murder.

It is usually not possible to prove that a given instance of cancer is caused by radiation from a
nuclear power plant, but the tendency for cancer cases to cluster around nuclear power plants is
hard to miss.

That certainly doesn't include all the extra cancer deaths in the decades following Chernobyl,
nor could it include those that will be caused by the radiation spewed and spewing from Fukushima.

[JCMach1]

34. Two wrongs don't make a right...

[underseasurveyor]

35. More misleadimg bullshit propaganda from a nuke lover

Loathsome creatures these nuke lovers :puke:

[Warren DeMontague]

37. Recent levels of radiation in seawater near Fukushima Plant: 7,500,000X legal limit for I-131.

Yes, that was 7.5 Million times the legal limit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/japan-nuclear-plant-spews-radiation-several-million-times-the-legal-limit-into-the-sea/2011/04/04/AFotCTgC_story.html

Monday's sample contained 1.1 Million times the legal limit for Cesium-137, which has a half-life of 30 years.

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/05_27.html




I hate to break it to some people, but there is no way that this is going to be able to be spun as anything other than what it is- a massive clusterfuck and mind-boggling environmental, human, and health catastrophe.

[Raine]

38. So that makes nuclear acceptable???

NEITHER are acceptable!!!!!

[NoBlueDogs]

41. How many people die from wind and solar energy?

Hello everyone... is there a member introduction forum or thread on here??? :D Thanks in advance!

[Rhiannon12866]

43. No, actually there isn't, LOL.

But occasionally somebody will start one. But, given the lack of one, I'm happy to welcome you to DU, NoBlueDogs! It's great to have you with us! :hi:

[NoBlueDogs]

44. Many thanks!

I've been looking for a liberal forum for months.

[Rhiannon12866]

45. Well, you've certainly come to the right place.

Folks here have their squabbles, but when faced with the RW, we tend to join together. I've been here since the run-up to the Iraq war and wouldn't have survived the horror of "shock and awe" or the nightmare of the 2004 election without DU. Here's hoping that you've found an online home, too... :hi:

[Rhiannon12866]

47. Pssst...

I started a welcome thread... I've invited all new DUers to sign in so folks here can welcome you. :D

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=9659375&mesg_id=9659375

[Bandit]

50. 85.6% of all statistics are made up on the spot..

:shrug: Nuclear is catching up rapidly.

[NightWatcher]

51. how many people killed by solar, wind?

[jtuck004]

60. That's a good question...they don't make the news as easily.

Not only are the wastes from the mining of rare earths necessary for solar and wind technologies, but the removal of the metals requires the use of strong and toxic acids which are often pumped back into the ground, or into open ponds.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html

http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=21777

http://www.claireworks.net/itl/AREjiken-e-print.html

There are others. Also some projects in the US where tailings have proven to be a real problem.

[spanone]

52. there is nowhere to store radioactive waste. period. eom.

nowhere

[upi402]

53. fecking jayziz they just don't STOP!

How many die from solar, wind, biomass, tidal, geothermal... ?

How many illnesses are NOT COUNTED as resulting from radiation that we all know occur? How long does the waste last?

I'm beginning to HATE this propaganda.
No 'Nuke-Away! - no nukes.

[joeunderdog]

54. How do they compare to wind and solar?

Isn't that the question?

[jtuck004]

59. They are not comparable.

Wind, water, and solar are great, and should be used where possible. But there is a paper out there by Jacobson and Delucchi that suggests WWS can replace nuclear and coal. It's quite good, and details what they think would be required. If you get a chance read through it and think of the practicality of what is required.

"...We estimate that 3,800,000 5 MW wind turbines, 49,000 300 MW concentrated solar plants, 40,000 300 MW solar
PV power plants, 1.7 billion 3kW rooftop PV systems, 5350 100 MW geothermal power plants, 270 new 1300 MW hydroelectric
power plants, 720,0000 .75 MW wave devices,and 490,000 1 MW tidal turbines can power a 2030 WWS world that uses
electricity and electrolytic hydrogen for all purposes. Such a WWS infrastructure reduces world power demand by 30% and requires only 0.41% and 0.59% more of the world’s land for footprint and spacing, respectively."

I am all for using wind and solar where we can (I'm a little hesitant to screw up more rivers), but in the Jacobson\Delucchi paper even they say it would take until 2030 (from a practical construction perspective I think that is more likely a hundred years, if ever), require millions more wind turbines, another billion+ rooftop PV systems, another 300 really big hydroelectric power plants how many more rivers do we dam up?), and a lot more land. That's a LOT of construction and labor, mining for rare earth metals (used in wind and solar equipment, with the tailings left to pollute the earth where they dug them up), as well as lots and lots and lots of money.

Their analysis also assumes we cut our power usage by 30%. Have you checked on how many people are really using less energy these days? China is putting 1500 NEW vehicles on the road every day (actually that was just around Beijing) and countries are putting millions of people online for power in developing nations - any proposal that talks about less energy use is going to face some serious difficulties.

Also look up baseload power. Basically whatever technology used has to _generate_, not just store, a minimal level of power all the time. Solar works when the sun is up, but can't when it goes down, wind has the same problem, and water is becoming more scarce. Nuclear and nasty, filthy coal don't have those limitations.

I think we should use WWS where it is most practical, and when that is in and providing power, see where we can make inroads against nuclear.

Because if WWS is really a viable solution there is nothing stopping people from building and incorporating it. And when there is more power than demand, the arguments for WWS will be so strong they might just put nuclear out of business. But the only way to find out is to try to build it.