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

Comments

the riskiest thing i do everyday

[turkeydance]

is grab the car key

Four types of arguement

[aberglas]

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.