From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Nuke Stupidity Rebuttal
Date: 29 Sep 92 01:29:11 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <STEINLY.92Sep26143245@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:

>Funnily enough that argument strengthens the case for nuclear power!
>If you argue losing 20 people in a single incident is worse than
>losing 20 people statistically over a number of years, then almost all
>nuclear plant accident scenarios are preferred as even the worst cases
>involve mostly statistical risk to a population - I can think of
>no credible scenario where a large population would receive a lethal
>dose from a nuclear plant. 

I'd like to support the point that this does seem to be the case.

Especially in the context of things like dam failures, the 'worst
case' of 'concentrated loss' is likely to be low from nuclear when
compared to other systems.

One caviate, though, is that a Chernobyl type failure (which is 
admitedly not possible in US designs, though there may be 
equivalent modes of failure we don't know about...) can cause great
concentration of grief in a local population.  That is, the genetics
of an entire extended family structure can be screwed up by that kind
of release with the attendent lack of evacuation.  There is more to
concentrated loss than just death ...

Just as unfortunately, a major toxic spill can be even worse than a 
major nuke accident.  I've seen a hazard map of the Silicon Valley
that showed the likely death/illness zones around known tankage of
'nasty stuff'.  It scared the bigeezus out of me.  There was literally
no way I could drive the 15 miles home after an earthquake without
passing through a hazard zone...  I now own a gas mask that is in
my 'quake kit ...

Note that I do NOT think this argues for more nuclear, I think it 
argues for less toxics in better tankage ...  Consider Bohpal (sp?) ...

>In contrast, fossil fuel plant accidents typically
>involve 10-100 deaths on an occasional basis, including transport
>of fuel, mining and waste disposal - with waste disposal arguably
>the historically most hazardous. This is in _addition_ to the
>statistical risk that fossil plants pose by carcinogen emission, 
>SO2 emission and potential greenhouse effects.

I thought that there were natural gas explosions projected for CNG
storage sites that involved predictions of thousands of casualties?
Or were these for the (urban) sites that got scrubbed?

Don't coal dust explosions take out a hundred or so miners at a time
every decade or so?  (And often with the deaths concentrated in a
single family, since siblings and parents often work the same mine).

>If you dislike low probability scenarios with high potential costs
>then just the potential greenhouse effects should rule out fossil
>fuel plants.

Interesting point ... that also supports a solar path ... (and 
supports a 'use a little of each and not alot of any' path as well.)

-- 

E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM

'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.  Boldness has
 genius, power and magic in it.'  -  Goethe

I am not responsible nor is anyone else.  Everything is disclaimed.