It's a pretty good review, though his link to the "National Institute of Sciences warning" is atrocious. It's the National Academy of Sciences and his link doesn't take you there.
He correctly points out a bad argument made by many pro-nukes:
"If it makes sense to reduce exposures to lead, mercury and pesticides in the environment, why should radioactivity enjoy the special status of a "protected pollutant"? "
In fact, radioactivity already enjoys special status, but most pro-nukes don't realize it.
The EPA starts regulating a pollutant when the risk hits about 1 in one million risk of death to the average member of the most exposed population, and they don't allow the risk to exceed 1 in 10,000 over 30 years.
The NRC allows licensees to expose the general public up to 100 mrem per year.
(100 mrem/yr)(30 yr)(1% risk increase/10,000 mrem) = .3% = .003 = 3 in 1,000.
Realistically, there aren't too many people (if any) exposed to 100 mrem/yr over 30 years
But where is the review?
ReplyDeleteSorry!
ReplyDeleteI will insert link above.