Were the Nuclear Protesters Right?

[Nords]

The figures also include SL-1, Three Mile Island, and mining and shipping accidents as well as industrial accidents in fuel production and handling.

IIRC, wasn't SL-1 the Army's 1950s atomic-tank project whose rod-ejection accident impaled the worker in the overhead?

It's hard to remember this stuff when you don't have a copy of your Naval Reactors Training Bulletins handy.

I wonder whether that death was classified as "radiation" or "blunt trauma". If it happened today I bet the entire civilian nuclear power industry would've shut down, and Naval Reactors would've probably been shut down too...

EDIT: Oh, yeah, here we go: SL-1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[photoguy]

The full extent the catastrophe will have is unknown at this time.
Therefore I believe his optimism to be a bit premature.


Good night, I'm off to bed (I'm in Europe).

You're right the full extent is not known, but I think it's more of the case that coal mining is so bad. The comparison numbers he gives are 5000-20000 deaths PER YEAR in China.

 

[M Paquette]

You're right the full extent is not known, but I think it's more of the case that coal mining is so bad. The comparison numbers he gives are 5000-20000 deaths PER YEAR in China.

That's why I gave the deaths per Terawatt-hour produced figures for the US only. If we include the horrible conditions coal miners work under outside the US, and the deaths from the essentially unrestricted pollution in some regions, the numbers are far higher.

The world average for coal power is about 161 deaths per Terawatt-hour produced, compared to the US at 15 deaths per Terawatt-hour. China runs around 278 deaths per Terawatt-hour.

 

[BigNick]

I think it depends on whether you really, really object to dying of certain things, to the point that you are prepared to take substantially elevated risks of dying of B in order to avoid dying from A. People are terrible judges of risk, even without the media shouting at them.

For example, when many Americans stopped flying after 9/11, an additional 1,200 people were killed in the resulting increased road traffic and consequent collisions. But of course, those road deaths were not on the news for hours on end, in slow-motion, with endless talking heads.

Nuclear energy cannot compete if it is held up to impossibly high safety standards. The standards are already very, very high, comparable to the airline industry (in which analogy, the coal-fired energy producers are working to automotive safety standards). And of course, there's the paradox that the safer things become, the rarer the incidents, and so the greater the media impact of each incident. (If we'd been having a minor radiation leak every 3 months since the 1950s, we probably wouldn't even be having this debate.)

My advice to people who are still worried would be to inform yourself: about the real effects of different doses of radiation, about the actual chances of you being exposed to those doses, about the massively higher chances of many other bad things happening you in the next X years, and about very large and very small numbers in general (this is a good source). But "we don't know everything, it's scary, something bad might happen" is not a good basis for public policy discussion when it comes to something as fundamental as energy supply. Governments and/or corporations don't build nuclear plants for the fun of it.

 

[dex]

That's why I gave the deaths per Terawatt-hour produced figures for the US only. If we include the horrible conditions coal miners work under outside the US, and the deaths from the essentially unrestricted pollution in some regions, the numbers are far higher.

The world average for coal power is about 161 deaths per Terawatt-hour produced, compared to the US at 15 deaths per Terawatt-hour. China runs around 278 deaths per Terawatt-hour.

When talking energy; world numbers are probably best. That is because energy is a a world market. Although nuclear power produced in a country might stay in that country, it reduces the need for imported oil, coal or natural gas.

 

[samclem]

Thanks for the work, MPaquette.
- Regarding your "deaths per terawatt" metric: Can you give some info on methodology? Is this "end to end" for the fuel cycle for each energy type, is early mortality (decreased living years) converted to a death number in some way, etc?

Newer US coal plants capture much of the fly ash, but there is still an amazing amount of stuff that escapes.

And the stuff that is captured has to be disposed of. In the past this was frequently done in a way that was a lot less tidy and safe than the nuclear industry had to use (e.g. fly ash was frequently disposed of by adding it to cement. Radioactive residue from burning coal thus ended up in the cement blocks of people's homes, schools, etc. The residue from pumping oil is also frequently radioactive.)

Nuclear power not only provides reliable energy for baseline use, it does it in a way that fits into our present grid. Energy from tides, winds, solar etc would require lots of new electrical lines. Those aren't pretty, and mining for the raw materials to make them and the energy needed to produce them has a non-negligible environmental and mortality cost as well.

 

[GregLee]

Why is deaths per terawatt a relevant figure? Since nuclear power kills few people, yet people are very afraid of it, doesn't it seem they are not that concerned with the deaths it causes? And why should they be? Lots of people are dying all the time. More plausibly, it is the genetic effects that causes such horror.

 

[samclem]

More plausibly, it is the genetic effects that causes such horror.

Maybe, but if it is so central to the argument, it's strange that it doesn't get brought up more often.

Or, maybe that's because the evidence is so weak. Or because the realistic energy alternatives have their own mutagenic impacts.

People have all kinds of irrational fears. To cast about for potential frameworks in which their fears "make sense" is not likely to bring enlightenment.

 

[M Paquette]

Thanks for the work, MPaquette.
- Regarding your "deaths per terawatt" metric: Can you give some info on methodology? Is this "end to end" for the fuel cycle for each energy type, is early mortality (decreased living years) converted to a death number in some way, etc?

The methodology used is taken from the ExternE project calculations.

Deaths/TWh
In this report, we have elected to present the damage to health as deaths/TWh, as this is a concrete concept and easier to understand than the more theoretical term of 'external costs'. Despite a number of shortcomings, this provides a good basis for comparisons between the various forms of energy.
Adverse effects, expressed as deaths/TWh, are used as one step of the calculations of external costs, and are listed in the ExternE report.
Deaths/TWh is a coarse measure. Deaths due to air pollution tend to occur primarily among old and/or weak persons, while deaths from cancer due to for example radiation tend to occur regardless of age. It has therefore been argued that a better measure would be ' years of life lost'. The same reasoning could apply for other deaths, such as those occurring in traffic. A small child, killed in a traffic accident, loses a greater number of possible years of life than does an older person killed in the same accident. Nevertheless, such statistics are generally expressed only in terms of number of deaths.
The use of the concept of 'lost years of life' instead of deaths/TWh would have the effect of presenting fossil fuels in a somewhat better light in comparison with hydro power and nuclear power, but not so much that it would affect the conclusions in the report.
Methods of calculation
ExternE has used what is known as the impact pathway method for its calculations. This involves calculating or measuring emissions of pollution from each type of energy system (particulates, SO2, NOX and radioactive substances). This data is then used in a model that allows for the dispersion of pollution in the air and for population distributions.
A complication is introduced by the fact that the emitted air pollutants are usually chemically converted during their passage through the atmosphere, but the dispersion model allows for this.
Another complicated step, and which introduces uncertainty for some applications, is calculation of how inhaled air pollutants affect human health. This is done by using what is known as the dose/effect relationship that has been estimated through measurements and theoretical studies. An example of this is that a radiation dose, or a dose of some chemical poison, as received by one person results in an effect in the form of a greater risk of cancer.
As the hazardous pollutants are distributed over long distances, and as they affect persons in other countries, it is important to determine how much the diluted pollutants can affect a large population.

​

Some of the calculations are from work done by Brian Wang and the research team at Next Big Future and the Lifeboat Foundation. (They're a bit eclectic, rather eccentric, but the math checks out.)

 

[Nords]

More plausibly, it is the genetic effects that causes such horror.

Especially fearful since it's so difficult to quantify that risk...

 

[photoguy]

Why is deaths per terawatt a relevant figure? Since nuclear power kills few people, yet people are very afraid of it, doesn't it seem they are not that concerned with the deaths it causes? And why should they be? Lots of people are dying all the time. More plausibly, it is the genetic effects that causes such horror.

I guess it depends if you are looking for a measure that is indicative of safety or fear. For safety, it seems like a very reasonable thing to compute.

 

[ERD50]

The Japanese situation brings things into focus. 10,000 - 30,000 people were killed by the quake and tsunami, and only a handful have been killed by the nuclear problems, yet there's something extra ominous about radiation, potential for future cancer, and the slowly evolving hard-to-control threat.

This is just the kind of thing that protesters said would happen. Do you think they are being vindicated?

Along with the thread title, "Were the Nuclear Protesters Right?", I'm not sure where you are going with this, T-Al? It doesn't see to align with the statement "This is just the kind of thing that protesters said would happen." - I thought they were predicting mass deaths, large areas of contamination with definitive near-term negative effects, and clear expansive long-term effects?

But I guess I'd say NO to both. I haven't followed the numbers closely (I was traveling) but I think the few deaths were workers, right? So with 10,000-30,000 killed by the 'natural' events, and a few workers killed by the nuclear situation, how could this 'vindicate' the protesters, or make them 'right'? Especially if you compare worker deaths in other power generating facilities.

I think it was pointed out earlier, many thousands died on trains when the earthquake/tsunami hit. So are trains not designed to withstand these natural disasters? Should we ban trains? Where are the anti-train protesters?

-ERD50

 

[Gumby]

As far as I can tell, not one single person has died as a consequence of exposure to radiation. Some workers might have been killed during a hydrogen explosion, but that is not much different from any normal industrial accident.

 

[BigNick]

Why is deaths per terawatt a relevant figure?

Because the debate is not about whether "nuclear power is safe", because nothing is safe apart from a dead body. Rather, the debate is about "is nuclear power more or less safe than the alternatives". If you count deaths per TWh, it turns out that nuclear is pretty safe. If you prefer column inches per death per TWh, then it's a different matter. But a lot of people imagine that the likelihood of something happening to them increases with media coverage of that something, whereas in fact the opposite is generally the case.

 

[TromboneAl]

This quote:

10,000 - 30,000 people were killed by the quake and tsunami, and only a handful have been killed by the nuclear problems, yet there's something extra ominous about radiation, potential for future cancer, and the slowly evolving hard-to-control threat.

was meant to keep the debate away from just comparing body counts.

 

[GregLee]

If you count deaths per TWh, it turns out that nuclear is pretty safe.

I do think you're going around in a circle, here. "Safe" assumes agreement about what is to be preserved, and evidently you've decided that is human life. I'm not sure that I and others agree about this. Recent interpreters of Darwin's ideas about sexual selection might reasonably think that our deepest motivations have more to do with the biological future of our species than maintaining a large current population of humans.

 

[ERD50]

I do think you're going around in a circle, here. "Safe" assumes agreement about what is to be preserved, and evidently you've decided that is human life. I'm not sure that I and others agree about this.

So what is your definition of 'safe'?

Is coal 'safe', with it's acid rain, particulates, carbon emissions, mountain-top removal, habitat destruction, mercury emissions and spewing of more radiation than nuclear plants? I could make a similar list for all major power sources.

-ERD50

 

[kcowan]

Yes ERD i think a case can be made for or against any power source. The only thing that changes is popular feelings about it.

 

[Pete]

Madame Curie who worked with radioactive material died in 1934 of leukemia. "Radiation is so pernicious and long lasting that even now her papers from the 1890's-even her cookbooks-are too dangerous to handle. Her lab books are kept in lead lined boxes, and those who wish to see them must don protective clothing."-A Short History of Nearly Everything.

 

[ERD50]

Madame Curie who worked with radioactive material died in 1934 of leukemia. "Radiation is so pernicious and long lasting that even now her papers from the 1890's-even her cookbooks-are too dangerous to handle. Her lab books are kept in lead lined boxes, and those who wish to see them must don protective clothing."-A Short History of Nearly Everything.

And how is that relevant to our use, handling and understanding of nuclear power today? Isn't coal and oil flammable after millions of years?

Oh, and her husband died from a horse cart - so what should we do about that?

On 19 April 1906, Pierre was killed in a street accident. Walking across the Rue Dauphine in heavy rain, he was struck by a horse-drawn vehicle and fell under its wheels, his skull was fractured.[23] While it has been speculated that previously he may have been weakened by prolonged radiation exposure, there are no indications that this contributed to the accident.

-ERD50

 

[Pete]

And how is that relevant to our use, handling and understanding of nuclear power today? -ERD50

Apparently you missed the point. For one thing, it's just darn interesting..for another, poisoning of the environment (like Marie's things) lasts a long time.

Another interesting thing is that radioactivity was discovered in 1896, was thought to have health benefits, and was added to things like toothpaste and laxatives. It wasn't banned in consumer products until 1938. (SHNE)

Thanks for the info about her husband.

 

[dex]

Apparently you missed the point. For one thing, it's just darn interesting..for another, poisoning of the environment (like Marie's things) lasts a long time.

Another interesting thing is that radioactivity was discovered in 1896, was thought to have health benefits, and was added to things like toothpaste and laxatives. It wasn't banned in consumer products until 1938. (SHNE)

Thanks for the info about her husband.

Your posts in this thread and your signature line help me to add you to my ignore list.
Thanks

 

[M Paquette]

Apparently you missed the point. For one thing, it's just darn interesting..for another, poisoning of the environment (like Marie's things) lasts a long time.

Another interesting thing is that radioactivity was discovered in 1896, was thought to have health benefits, and was added to things like toothpaste and laxatives. It wasn't banned in consumer products until 1938. (SHNE)

Note that the radioactive materials M. Curie worked with are all naturally occurring substances with very long half-lives. None of the materials she died from, or that contaminated her texts and materials were artificial radioactives, reactor waste, or fission products. Her search to isolate and identify the substances responsible for Henri Becquerel's penetrating rays led her to handle and process tons of pitchblende ore, attempting to isolate and concentrate the radioactive components.

The damaging effects of long term exposure to high levels of ionizing radiation were not then known, and no precautions were taken beyond those then known for handling of toxic metals. This led to her high lifetime exposure and the contamination of her papers.

These days we have instruments for monitoring radiation, as well as exposure of individuals, and a good understanding of health physics and the steps needed to protect people. We make measurements, use shielding, and carefully track exposure for persons at chronic risk, such as those working around radiation sources (except, oddly, TSA workers, who are forbidden to wear dosimeters around X-ray equipment).

 

[ERD50]

Apparently you missed the point. For one thing, it's just darn interesting..for another, poisoning of the environment (like Marie's things) lasts a long time.

I didn't miss the point. Poisoning of the environment (like acid rain from sulfur emissions from coal, and the radiation and mercury released from coal) lasts a long time.

In case you don't know, there is more radiation around coal plants than nuclear plants. The constant release of the low levels of radiation in the coal builds up over time.

Another interesting thing is that radioactivity was discovered in 1896, was thought to have health benefits, and was added to things like toothpaste and laxatives. It wasn't banned in consumer products until 1938. (SHNE)

And science marches on and now we know better. We aren't stuck in 1896, or even 1938.

Thanks for the info about her husband.

It's as relevant a threat today as Madame Curie dying from radiation from her actions before we understood the needed precautions. Some of the early steam engines and internal combustion engines blew up - does that mean we can't have any steam turbines or autos either? And there have been some real catastrophes from dams busting. Nothing is without risk.

-ERD50

 

[TromboneAl]

IBTL