Log In
Web Date: April 2, 2013
Nuclear Power Prevents More Deaths Than It Causes
News Channels: Environmental SCENE
Keywords: nuclear power, climate change, greenhouse gases, mortality, air pollution, coal, natural gas, Fukushima
![[+]Enlarge](javascript:doMediaModal({'modal_div': 'media_modal_cen-20130402lnj1-crystalriver-gr1', 'type': 'image', 'mediaPath': '/content/dam/cen/91/web/20130402lnj1-crystalriver.jpg', 'width': '700', 'height': '466.56976'});){kind=link}
Using nuclear power in place of fossil-fuel energy sources, such as coal, has prevented some 1.8 million air pollution-related deaths globally and could save millions of more lives in coming decades, concludes a study. The researchers also find that nuclear energy prevents emissions of huge quantities of greenhouse gases. These estimates help make the case that policymakers should continue to rely on and expand nuclear power in place of fossil fuels to mitigate climate change, the authors say (Environ. Sci. Technol., DOI: 10.1021/es3051197).
In the wake of the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, critics of nuclear power have questioned how heavily the world should rely on the energy source, due to possible risks it poses to the environment and human health.
“I was very disturbed by all the negative and in many cases unfounded hysteria regarding nuclear power after the Fukushima accident,” says report coauthor Pushker A. Kharecha, a climate scientist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in New York.
Working with Goddard’s James E. Hansen, Kharecha set out to explore the benefits of nuclear power. The pair specifically wanted to look at nuclear power’s advantages over fossil fuels in terms of reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
Kharecha was surprised to find no broad studies on preventable deaths that could be attributed to nuclear power’s pollution savings. But he did find data from a 2007 study on the average number of deaths per unit of energy generated with fossil fuels and nuclear power (Lancet, DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61253-7). These estimates include deaths related to all aspects of each energy source from mining the necessary natural resources to power generation. For example, the data took into account chronic bronchitis among coal miners and air pollution-related conditions among the public, including lung cancer.
The NASA researchers combined this information with historical energy generation data to estimate how many deaths would have been caused if fossil-fuel burning was used instead of nuclear power generation from 1971 to 2009. They similarly estimated that the use of nuclear power over that time caused 5,000 or so deaths, such as cancer deaths from radiation fallout and worker accidents. Comparing those two estimates, Kharecha and Hansen came up with the 1.8 million figure.
They next estimated the total number of deaths that could be prevented through nuclear power over the next four decades using available estimates of future nuclear use. Replacing all forecasted nuclear power use until 2050 with natural gas would cause an additional 420,000 deaths, whereas swapping it with coal, which produces significantly more pollution than gas, would mean about 7 million additional deaths. The study focused strictly on deaths, not long-term health issues that might shorten lives, and the authors did not attempt to estimate potential deaths tied to climate change.
Finally the pair compared carbon emissions from nuclear power to fossil fuel sources. They calculated that if coal or natural gas power had replaced nuclear energy from 1971 to 2009, the equivalent of an additional 64 gigatons of carbon would have reached the atmosphere. Looking forward, switching out nuclear for coal or natural gas power would lead to the release of 80 to 240 gigatons of additional carbon by 2050.
By comparison, previous climate studies suggest that the total allowable emissions between now and 2050 are about 500 gigatons of carbon. This level of emissions would keep atmospheric CO2 concentrations around 350 ppm, which would avoid detrimental warming.
Because large-scale implementation of renewable energy options, such as wind or solar, faces significant challenges, the researchers say their results strongly support the case for nuclear as a critical energy source to help stabilize or reduce greenhouse gas concentrations.
Bas van Ruijven, an environmental economist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, in Boulder, Colo., says the estimates on prevented deaths seem reasonable. But he wonders if the conclusion that nuclear power saves hundreds of times more lives than it claims will convince ardent critics.
The nuclear power issue is “so polarized that people who oppose nuclear power will immediately dispute the numbers,” Van Ruijven says. Nonetheless, he agrees with the pair’s conclusions on the importance of nuclear power.
- Chemical & Engineering News
- ISSN 0009-2347
- Copyright © American Chemical Society
Then what do you suggest we do about the waste?
Well, that's a little tangent, but the point is hydro cannot pick up the slack right now. So we need a transition fuel - something to use instead of fossil fuels while we wait for renewables to be good enough. Nuclear is likely the best transition fuel we have right now - at least in terms of greenhouse gases, that is.
Actually, one disposal solution is fourth-generation nuclear. Remember that nearly all nuclear plants around are second-generation nuclear technology, which is relatively inefficient in converting fuel to energy, leaving large amounts of still radioactive byproducts as waste. A third generation includes reactors that use not uranium but thorium, resulting in far less in radioactive actinides left over.
The fourth generation, which the US *was* researching but cancelled a decade or more ago partly because of the efforts of John Kerry, includes various kinds of "fast" or "breeder" reactors. Breeder reactors are actually designed, first of all, to be inherently safe: a failure automatically shuts down the reaction: the design makes a "meltdown" impossible. More importantly, they are designed to recycle fuel, including any nuclear waste from earlier technologies. In other words, what is now nuclear waste can be reused as *fuel* for these reactors — which, being far more efficient, need less fuel to draw an equivalent energy and can make use of the same amount of material for a far greater length of time. And when as much energy as possible has been wrung out of the fuel, what is left over has a half life not of millennia, but mere decades. And unlike the admittedly small danger of plutonium being stolen to make thermonuclear bombs or dirty bombs, the design of fourth generation reactors makes this impossible, and the waste itself is useless for any such purpose.
So the solution to one problem falls naturally out of the solution to another.
The biggest advantage of this system is that the fuel is contained in a liquid form, and so it does not need to be removed before it is completely used up, as current reactors have to (because if they don't, the fuel rods may crack and release radiation). This allows the fuel to be used up more completely, estimated at about 99 percent (even though that is a little optimistic) as compared with current uranium's less than one percent. Allowing the fuel to burn this long also breaks down radioactive wastes that are associated with nuclear energy as well, just to sweeten the deal.
The next advantage associated with this reactor type is the safety features. Most reactors today have active safety features which must be switched on to function, such as backup generators in Fukushima, each most likely with a high probability of turning on, but they were wiped out, and so the reactor melted down. The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) though, has a passive safety system. The reactor is built with two chambers, one to react in, and one empty one. The tube connecting them is plugged with frozen salt, which is kept cool by cooling systems outside of the pipe. If the power is shut off for whatever reason, then the plug melts, and the fuel drains into this drain tank, stopping the reaction. This safety feature will cut the risk of nuclear energy down (I'm not exactly sure on this figure) from it's already lowest out of any resource (The major ones, at least. Of course, I don't know what the death rates for hydro or wind are, but they aren't exactly a feasible resource right now. Maybe in the future, but not now).
http://xkcd.com/1162/
I have no problem with nuclear, though as it has already received hundreds of billions of subsidies in the past, it should be able to stand on its own two feet in the market now. So go ahead and build your nuclear plant, as soon as you can demonstrate that you can privately insure it against the full costs of a Cherynobyl level disaster AND that you have a method to indefintely store the waste products for at least 10,000 years, including money set aside to pay for whatever maintanence is necessary. If you have that, you can even build it in my back yard.
Pumped hydro can solve renewable realibility issues. It's old, simple technology, and permit applications have skyrocketed in the last few years precisely because we need more of it.
FOR SAFETY
LWR is cooled by water, at very high pressure to keep it liquid at 350C so it will cool effectively. The risk of a pipe breaking means a huge steam containment building is essential, and multiple-redundant high-pressure pipes and valves.
MSR is cooled by molten salts (boiling point over 1400C, operating temp 600C-950C). The entire MSR operates at atmospheric pressure. With no water in MSR, all of the water risks and pressure risks of LWR are eliminated.
LWR materials can melt if the fuel gets much hotter. In an emergency, everything that normally happens in the reactor has to be overridden to stop fission and keep the fuel cooled.
In MSR the molten fuel expands/contracts with changes in heat, self-adjusting the fission rate. Reactor materials can handle the hottest the reactor could get in any normal or emergency situation. A "freeze plug" melting allows the molten fuel to quickly drain into passive storage tanks where fission can not happen, that do not need any electricity or water.
FOR NUCLEAR WASTE
In a Light Water Reactor (LWR) about 1% of the fuel is fissioned because fission products are trapped in the fuel, blocking fission.
In Molten Salt Reactors over 99% of fuel is fissioned, simply by using molten fuel so the fission products are easily removed. Uranium, plutonium, and all other long-term radioactive materials are simply left circulating in the reactor until they either are fissioned, or decay to short-term radioactive materials (store for 10 years).
A Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) is a Molten Salt Reactor that can convert plentiful thorium (4X as common as uranium) into uranium, inside the reactor; so there is 5X as much fuel available.
Using thorium instead of U-235 makes a few percent difference in the <1% un-fissioned long-term radioactive waste. (There is uranium naturally in coal. Every coal plant leaves more uranium than a MSR; but coal plants just leave it in the ash heap as "naturally occurring radioactive material".)
Molten Salt Reactors take 800kg to 1000kg mined uranium (or thorium) to make 1GW electricity for a year, leaving only short-term waste; LWR takes 250,000kg mined uranium to make 35,000kg enriched uranium, leaving all of it as waste.
MSR can use LWR waste as fuel; some MSR configurations can even use the 215,000kg depleted uranium left over from making enriched uranium. No "reprocessing" needed, put the uranium, plutonium and fission products in the MSR and it works. (All types of nuclear reactor need some enriched uranium or plutonium to start the reaction; MSR can operate on "spent" LWR fuel).
Both MSR and LWR leave the same amount of fission products for the same heat: that 800kg to 1000kg. (But MSR can use more efficient high-temperature turbines, to make more electricity than LWR from the same amount of fission.) 83% of that has to be stored under 10 years; 17% has to be stored 350 years. We know how to store the few chemicals, totaling 170kg or 375 lbs per gigawatt-year, for 350 years. MSR eliminates long-term nuclear waste.
For more detail, and scientific journal references, see http://liquidfluoridethoriumreactor.glerner.com/
Even including Chernobyl (a very different type of reactor than LWR, known to be risky, yet with no containment building at all), more people have died from coal or oil Each year than have died from nuclear power All 60 Years Combined.
Molten Salt Reactors are another type of reactor, that we built and operated, and was shown to be Very stable.
MSRs use no water, are cooled by stable kind of salt, so would have no chemical explosions, no pressure explosions. Losing power would melt a "freeze plug" and the molten fuel drains to passive storage that doesn't need power or water.
Fission products can be removed regularly from the molten fuel; the gasses just need to be collected. Almost all the fission products need only 10 years storage, but many of them only need Days. There would be less highly radioactive material than at any LWR.
The fluoride salt in MSR chemically binds the fuel and most fission products; doesn't interact or dissolve in water; doesn't interact with air; is almost twice as dense as water. Cools to solid, much easier to collect than in LWR accidents, plus no radioactive Water.
Most likely MSRs would be installed underground, with metal floors that could collect any spills from damage like an earthquake. That would stop most terrorist strikes, and contain the radiation if there were a strike. With no flames, no explosion, no big radiation leak, no needing emergency cooling water that would need to be contained, it would be a boring TV show, so I think terrorists would stick to trains and oil refineries and bridges and restaurants.
One design of MSR would have 200MW fit in a standard shipping truck, fully assembled. In addition to making electricity, the high heat can desalinate water or make gasoline (water + CO2 + heat = gasoline). Ideal for providing power to disaster areas...
http://liquidfluoridethoriumreactor.glerner.com/
Whatever is common kills more than the uncommon.
Or, the other way around, in an alternate universe where we haven't used fission to produce electricity (but still had all the data about it, somehow), they could say that, had they used nuclear, those 1.8 million people wouldn't have died.
Commonality has nothing to do with it.
For wind it is . . . ~150
solar roof PV . . .~440
hydro . . . . . . . ~1,400
Biofuels . . . . ~24,000
Nuclear is safer than the lot.
What are you- 12 years old? You should probably not talk until you understand how nuclear power and waste disposal works, because you are making yourself sound foolish.
Or you need modern nuclear power that can throttle up/down matching renewable supply to electrical need. Even LWR might be able to provide cheaper power than all that renewable power plus storage -- land, construction, maintenance, operation. Molten Salt Reactors definitely can.
Even natural gas can't do that as well -- the most efficient NG is only that efficient at one speed, and less efficient but rapid-on NG combined with solar/wind uses More NG than the most efficient NG plant without solar/wind.
I think we should stop calling LWR "nuclear power" when it is only One Type of nuclear power, and the fossil fuel companies are making sure we don't develop other proven types of nuclear reactors... and build modern nuclear reactors and renewable energy as fast as possible.
Light Water Reactors are the only type of nuclear power we've used for decades, for political reasons not technical ones. For example, the Atomic Energy Commission's report to the President and Congress, in 1962, saying to stop using LWR, and use other types of reactors, was ignored.
Molten Salt Reactors will be much simpler than LWR, since they don't have the safety issues with using Water. No steam containment building, no high-pressure reactor vessel and pipes -- because no steam and no high-pressure. MSR would be factory assembled, with lower cost, better quality control, modern instrumentation and monitoring.
MSR consumes over 99% of the molten fuel, vs LWR 1% of the solid fuel. And MSR can use LWR waste as fuel.
If you want to Eliminate nuclear waste (not bury it and hope), only the right type of nuclear reactor can do that. Of the possible types of reactor, only a Molten Salt Reactor has been built and operated.
http://liquidfluoridethoriumreactor.glerner.com/
Renewable energy does not bring the catastrophic risk that nukes do. Only nukes can suddenly and violently make a huge area of land uninhabitable. The choice is not nukes vs. fossils - it is nukes vs. renewables and nukes lose.
Note that neither Fukushima nor Chernobyl had the dome-shaped reinforced concrete containment buildings of which the US is so fond. Which, by the way, stopped Three Mile Island, also caused by a failure of cooling, from doing much damage. In other words, the containment building contained the disaster.
Hence, the last (and first) deaths in the US due to nuclear power was in 1961, meaning 52 years and over 100 nuclear power plants has lead to 0 deaths.
Saying we shouldn't build nuclear plants because they might melt down is like saying we shouldn't build cars because (in an alternate universe) there existed a few shoddily-built gasoline engines that could explode. Build the engines right, and they're safe.
Don't believe me? Ask the US, with their 104 reactors, all of which had construction begin at least 39 years ago, and their sparkling safety record. With technology 39 years old. A 39-year-old /computer/ would probably explode if operated, but not nuclear power plants.
Fission can also be built in cities, where wind is more difficult, and in cloudy areas (Cascadia, Britain, e.g.) where solar is more difficult. It's way more compact than wind, is way less environmentally altering than hydro, and more versatile than geothermal, which is pretty much limited to Yellowstone (exaggeration).
I would say 'give nukes a chance', but we've already done it: a 50-year-long chance, and despite a beautiful safety record, it's still distrusted.
A most curious title, as if there are a lot of nuke power plant related deaths?
Anything that furthers carbon based fossil fuel (oil, coal, natural gas) dependance is not the answer, nuclear fission reactors are a step in a better direction (although it is unjust to burden future generations with the not fully decayed radioactive material)
In addition there are recent developments for safety measures, new paradigm disasters for such things as tsunamis or earthquakes
NOT, "-The NASA researchers combined this information with historical energy generation data to estimate how many deaths would have been caused if fossil-fuel burning was used instead of nuclear power generation from 1971 to 2009. They similarly estimated that the use of nuclear power over that time caused 5,000 or so deaths, such as cancer deaths from radiation fallout and worker accidents. Comparing those two estimates, Kharecha and Hansen came up with the 1.8 million figure.,"
Data from NSWS, Taiwan apts, etc is so overwhelming of BENEFIT from more rediation that
for 5 years I have been sitting on thoriated welding rods giving 150 mRad/hour (10x ambientm 3 hours/ day),
a Denver dose, to inhibit cancer.
If you want to Replace coal/oil, not having natural gas as backup for wind/solar, well you need to think things through. Energy storage systems to cover a city through 5 weeks of non-stop overcast skies, and generating capacity to keep those storage systems charged? Trans-continental power transmission systems (sounds like a technical challenge and political nightmare)?
If you want natural gas backup for wind/solar, and natural gas is cheap, why would a community pay for wind/solar equipment on top of natural gas equipment? Pair up solar/wind with the wrong type of natural gas plant and you use More natural gas than without solar/wind. Natural gas has much less pollution than coal/oil, but inevitably releases methane, 30x as powerful a greenhouse gas as CO2. You have to think things through.
Got to think things through, to make sure you are getting what you want. Start to finish, total cost, total pollution, illness and deaths caused, land use, water use, mining through dismantling.
People have too died with solar and wind. Far fewer than from coal or oil, more than from global nuclear, per gigawatt-year. Solar photovoltaic requires mining and handling toxic chemicals; so do high-tech windmills; people have died cleaning windmills.
New types of nuclear reactor, such as Molten Salt Reactors, work better with wind/solar variability than even natural gas, produce far less pollution (and less radioactivity in the environment, and less environmental damage in accidents) than coal/oil, use no water (and make enough heat to desalinate water) and can Eliminate long-term waste from Light Water Reactors.
LWR's time is past -- the physicists and engineers were saying that in the 1950s, told the President and Congress that in 1962. Few people drive 1970 automobiles or watch 1970 TVs; we should build the best possible nuclear reactors (especially since they cost and waste less than LWR).
If you want to eliminate coal/oil, and want to build solar/wind, then new, completely different types of nuclear reactors take less land, water, money, pollution, environmental damage than any other potential power sources, to back up wind/solar.
Let's unpack that and do a nuclear vs renewables throw-down:
1. Training sufficient resources to the skill level necessary to safely build generation - massive advantage for renewables
2. Training sufficient resources to the skill level necessary to safely maintain generation - massive advantage for renewables
3. Security required for supply chains - massive advantage for renewables
4. Security required for operating generation - massive advantage for renewables
5. Ensuring no significant sudden loss of generation - advantage for renewables
6. Cost of a gigawatt of new generation - massive advantage for renewables
7. Social license for new generation - massive advantage for renewables
8. Ease of financing for new generation - massive advantage for renewables
9. Ease of decommissioning and waste storage - massive advantage for renewables
10. Ease of limiting generation in the event of surplus - advantage for renewables
As for health impacts and CO2e per TWh, nuclear and renewables are about equal. Where nuclear exists it makes tremendous sense to keep it running (with a couple of exceptions like Ontario where there is a bit too much of it leading to SBG). There are about as many places where there is social license to build as there are skilled resources to build and operate in the pipeline. Nuclear generation is self-throttling. It will never be a major part of the energy future without extraordinary societal change over the next 50 years.
Renewables, on the other hard, are growing enormously quickly around the world using pretty basic technology that can be installed and maintained by people with skills and aptitudes that are in wide supply.
I like nuclear as a part of our energy mix, but you have to live in a pretty hypothetical world to think that it will supplant renewables as a primary area of new generation growth, or even that it should.
This does nothing to help the rest of the non-american world as they grow in their need for energy. Solar and Wind stand at roughly 32 cents and 18 cents per kWh, compared with the 4.5 of coal and 6-8 of natural gas.
China is developing nuclear because they understand this. The hope is that perhaps energy costs get as low as 2 cents per kWh! This would really change the industry and improve quality of life across the globe. Cost is most especially a concern when we consider the depressed state of economies across the world. The poor drive the economy. Their needs will be filled.
From a proper nuclear reactor there are only a tiny fraction of the end products that can be called waste. Like from a Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) where only 7% of the end products need to be stored, and then for only 300 years until it is safe. The other 93% consist of perfectly safe and valuable materials, such as neodymium and zirconium.
The reason our current nuclear power plants produce so much waste is because they were designed first and foremost to provide material for nuclear weapons.
This is not true. However, they were designed by people who's main experience base was military (Naval Nuclear Power). Indeed, it was essentially a scaled up submarine reactor. And once te pattern was set, the NRC makes it difficult to change horses.
That could change rapidly with the right leadership.
All of the few other RBMK reactors (all in former USSR) have been extensively modified, including much faster control rods, so none of them will have a Chernobyl accident.
LWR has different Physics, steam bubbles make the reactor weaker ("negative void coefficient"). LWR can overheat, but no way to spiral out of control like Chernobyl.
All Generation-IV reactors would not need water cooling in emergency, so wouldn't have a Fukushima style accident.
1.2 million deaths is much higher than most estimates; most of those "estimates" rely on an early "linear no-threshold" model from when we had little data, that is now demonstrated unreliable at low radiation levels, but even that predicts 25,000 deaths (Wikipedia "Also based upon extrapolations from the linear no-threshold model of radiation induced damage, down to zero, the Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that, among the hundreds of millions of people living in broader geographical areas, there will be 50,000 excess cancer cases resulting in 25,000 excess cancer deaths."), so you have to read those studies carefully... And we know that USSR didn't even tell people to evacuate for two days.
What about reducing energy usage? The western world could easily halve their energy usage within a decade. Improve housing standards, reduce transport drastically, and so on.
Meanwhile we can build up solar energy system. Solar panel on roofs of buildings.
We need neither nuclear nor fossil fuel power.
Solar power is good, but not a complete system; same with wind. What are you going to use when the sun isn't shining, heavily overcast for weeks at a time? Rooftop solar might Average to zero fossil fuel use, but still requires grid power.
Need either massive power storage (expensive, and not environmentally friendly), and solar/wind generating capacity to store several weeks worth of power (expensive); or you need a baseload power. Nuclear power (even ancient LWR) provides this with less pollution, less radiation, and less total expense than any other source of power to back up solar/wind.
New nuclear reactor types would be even better; for example, eliminate LWR waste, use no water (we need it for irrigation!), cost less since no high pressure pipes and no steam containment (no high pressure and no steam).
You have to think through the total costs: land, water, mining, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling, disposal. Total illness, death, environmental damage, pollution, radiation.
One idea: Solar requires mined rare earth minerals. Thorium is always found with rare earth minerals. Some types of nuclear reactor can use thorium and/or uranium. Molten Salt Reactors, since the fuel is molten, can fission over 99% of the fuel: the fission products can be extracted, instead of blocking fission like in solid fuel reactors. Several of the fission products are rare earth minerals, that solar (and many other industries) use. I think we should eliminate LWR waste in MSR first, though; leave the thorium until later, it isn't dangerous (like most things mined, don't inhale the dust!)
Lo and behold, the NYT does a piece on this and the quotes of the TEPCO and other members are quite quite telling
http://nyti.ms/ZhgFfM
It doesn't have to be this way. There are far better designs and technologies, such as the Molton Salt Reactor. These:
1. Burn 99% of the fuel, because it's dissolved in a liquid salt that can circulate and be reprocessed on-line
2. Produce 1% of the waste of conventional nuclear reactors
3. Can actually consume existing nuclear waste stockpiles
4. Can't melt down, are passively "walk-away-safe" thanks to their inherent safety features
5. Can't have a steam explosion, unlike a pressurised light water reactor, because they're not under pressure and don't use water
6. Can run on Thorium instead of Uranium which is as common as lead and effectively free - it's a byproduct of mining
7. Are significantly smaller and cheaper to construct. So much so that the energy from one has the potential to be cheaper than coal
Molton Salt Reactors were developed in the 60s at Oak Ridge National Laboratories and are a proven technology that were tragically not pursued due to political reasons.
There are a number of companies trying to resurrect the Molton Salt Reactor technologie, such as Flibe Energy, Transatomic Power, and Terrestrial Energy. China's National Academy of Sciences is now building a prototype reactor due to come on-line in 2020, just 7 years away. Their effort is being headed up by Jiang Mianheng, son of former leader Jiang Zemin, so they understand the potential and are taking this very seriously.
There's more information on Molton Salt Reactors here, which I'd highly recommend everyone watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4
Had we gone down the MSR route the world we inhabit would look vastly different - there would have been no Fukishima or Chernobyl, and quite possibly most of the world's energy would be being produced by them. Worldwide CO2 emissions would be considerably lower, and waste stockpiles would be considerably lower.
Thankfully it's not too late - I'm trying to do all I can to spread the word about Molten Salt Reactors, I hope others will too.
Germany manages without much nuclear plants why can't Britain do the same.
Switzerland is also phasing out nuclear power.
The WHO report was written by the pro nuclear IAEA. The UN is control by the 5 nuclear power who make money of nuclear power too.
www.euradcom.org/2011/chernhealthrept3.pdf Chernobyl European Committee on Radiation Risk review of studies, as many as 2.4M cancer total, over a million deaths.
www.strahlentelex.de/Yablokov_Chernobyl_book.pdf Chernobyl
Consequences of the Catastrophe for
People and the Environment is a translation of a 2007 Russian publication by Alexey V. Yablokov, Vassily B. published by the The New York Academy of Sciences
Why do all the pro nuclear groups and govs ignore the Russian and Ukrainian scientists?
Besides, nuclear power will be short of fuel in just ten years or so.
The IAEA says that we will have uranium shortages starting in 2025, then getting worse fast.
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1104_scr.pdf
"As we look to the future, presently known resources
fall short of demand."
Fig 16 show the shortfall in 2025 and it going 1/4 of that 2050
fig 20 also show shortfall.
Solar pv, offshore wind, electric vehicles, efficiency, and hydro and waste to fuels for backup, long range and chemicals. Cheaper before gov breaks, infinitely cheaper than war, pollution and climate change.
Solar and wind are now available cheaper than any other sources. Before gov breaks
http://www.lazard.com/media/1777/levelized_cost_of_energy_-_version_80.pdf