Slashdot Mirror
Canadian Nuclear Accident Study Puts Risks Into Perspective
An anonymous reader writes: A Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) study has concluded that there would be no detectable increase in cancer risk for most of the population from radiation released in a hypothetical severe nuclear accident. The CNSC's study is the result of a collaborative effort of research and analysis undertaken to address concerns raised during public hearings on the environmental assessment for the refurbishment of Ontario Power Generation's (OPG's) Darlington nuclear power plant in 2012. The draft study was released for public consultation in June 2014. Feedback from the Commission itself and comments from over 500 submissions from the public, government and other organizations have been incorporated in the final version. The study involved identifying and modelling a large atmospheric release of radionuclides from a hypothetical severe nuclear accident at the four-unit Darlington plant
is grab the car key
Nuclear energy is the past, and is a ticking time bomb waiting to detonate. Solar and wind is the obvious way forward.
There are four the types of arguments, of increasing power:-
1. Detailed technical arguments.
2. Simplistic factual arguments.
3. Emotional arguments.
4. Authoratative arguments.
Mugs like me tend to rely on detailed technical arguments. Simplistic factual arguments are much more powerful, but will always be trumped by an argument that appeals to people emotionally. And arguments from respected people in authority (like film stars) trump everything else.
So Nuclear = Nuclear Bombs = Satan. No amount of geeky statistical analysis can change that.
We have no business being afraid of nuclear power plants, anymore than we should be afraid of aircraft deaths. Whether or not we should take more actions to protect against coal, tobacco or cars is an entirely different matter.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Wow. I'll guarantee you there was a lot of politcking that went on behind this *COUGH* *COUGH* study. No way it was going to warn people of a potential for disaster. That would have been nipped at the bud from the outset.
PRO-TIP: The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission wants people to use nuclear power. Just "safely."
While they were avoidable cases of cancer, the actual proportion of the population affected has been minimal. Claiming that Chernobyl was such a terrible disaster compared to, say, any real disaster in recent memory is laughable. Nuclear "disasters" in general are comparable to space exploration disasters, and the risk is absolutely miniscule compared to sporting events, of all things.
Nuclear accident = uninhabitable area
Coal under normal use = uninhabitable planet
I'm not pretending Nuclear is perfect but given the choice, I vote for Nuclear.
Nuclear energy is the last thing the public needs to worry about. The world pretty much has been poisoned over the last 100 years with toxic chemicals made by DuPont and 3M. Cancer, high cholesterol, endocrine disruption, diabetes, mental health....death. Poorly regulated chemicals are orders of magnitude more dangerous than the highly regulated nuclear industry.