I saw Rod Adam's blog claiming that the Union of Concerned Scientists's blog was fear mongering over the content of the documentary.
I don't read the UCS blog as fear mongering, more like correcting some errors in the documentary.
But that doesn't mean the UCS couldn't do better at putting the risks in perspective. For example the author points out that we estimated 1,000 - 3,000 additional cancers from Fukushima. That's not good for those affected.
We can't take the data in isolation. What if Fukushima had not been built? One has to compare the lifecyle cancer risk from Fukushima versus what would have been a reasonable alternative (probably coal) when Fukushima was built.
That's a lengthy analysis, which I won't do here, and is subject to many assumptions (like is coal the most reasonable alternative?).
I'm confident that if someone undertook such an analysis, the 1,000 - 3,000 additional cancers from the Fukushima accident would play a small role. Remember that coal, depending on where it's mined can have uranium, thorium and potassium elements all of which are radioactive. It can also contain non-radioactive carcinogens like silica. And other non-carcinogenic, but deleterious elements like lead and mercury. And then there's the CO2.
I'm concerned about the objectivity of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
> One has to compare the lifecyle cancer risk from Fukushima versus what would have been a reasonable alternative (probably coal) when Fukushima was built.
ReplyDeleteWhile that's an "interesting" analysis for apportioning blame, the analysis of interest for the future compares further expansion of nuclear power in Japan with alternatives currently on offer; not just coal (which is ridiculously cheap, and dirty) but wind + solar.
I was coming from the perspective that most anti-nukes point out the number of cancers estimated to result from an accident. They usually fail to balance that estimate against an estimate of the number of deleterious health effects (including cancer) by avoiding whatever the most likely alternative energy source would have been.
DeleteBut looking towards the future, we should make projections based on more modern nuclear technologies as well as the latest in wind and solar technologies.