Safety (of nuclear energy) relative to other energy sources

[Dogmudgeon]

How safe is nuclear energy for its workers?

Pretty damn safe.

The fatality count at Chernobyl was 40-60, depending on the source cited; totaled for workers, "liquidators" (clean-up crew), and public. Adjusting to 91 deaths (a high estimate) gives a normalized death rate of 24/TWy (terawatt-years).

I am still looking for a definitive list of wind energy related deaths to corroborate Paul Gipe's 0.4 and 0.15 per TWh (terawatt-hours) figures; I will post what I find.

--p!

------

Safety (of nuclear energy) relative to other energy sources
(The table is close to the end of the page.)

Many occupational accident statistics have been generated over the last 40 years of nuclear reactor operations in the US and UK. These can be compared with those from coal-fired power generation. All show that nuclear is a distinctly safer way to produce electricity. Two simple sets of figures are quoted in the Table below and that in the appendix. A major reason for coal's unfavourable showing is the huge amount which must be mined and transported to supply even a single large power station. Mining and multiple handling of so much material of any kind involves hazards, and these are reflected in the statistics.

Comparison of accident statistics in primary energy production.

(Electricity generation accounts for about 40% of total primary energy)

Fuel··········Immediate fatalities·········Who?········Normalised to deaths
····················1970-92····························per TWy* electricity
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coal·················6400··················workers·············342
Natural gas··········1200··················workers & public·····85
Hydro················4000··················public··············883
Nuclear················31··················workers···············8

* Basis: per million MWe operating for one year, not including plant construction, based on historic data which is unlikely to represent current safety levels in any of the industries concerned.
*
Source: Ball, Roberts & Simpson, Research Report #20, Centre for Environmental & Risk Management, University of East Anglia, 1994; Hirschberg et al, Paul Scherrer Institut, 1996; in: IAEA, Sustainable Development and Nuclear Power, 1997; Severe Accidents in the Energy Sector, Paul Scherrer Institut, 2001).

[PDJane]

1. The safety of nuclear plants for the wrokers isn't at issue.

The problem comes when you try to dispose of the "burnt" rods in a conventional plant.

That's what the Pentagon is using for shielding and armour piercing rounds. It's an environmental toxin with a half life that will last until the earth is engulfed by the son, and the US is throwing it around rather indiscriminately.

It's not the workers I fear for.

[philb]

2. Cancer Rate Near Vogtle Nuclear Plant Questioned

Cancer Rate Near Vogtle Questioned
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jul 11 - Augusta Chronicle, The

A North Carolina environmental group unveiled a study Wednesday that showed significantly higher cancer deaths in the counties surrounding the Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant.

The Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League and its allies say that's all the more reason to oppose adding more reactors there. But the study author stopped short of saying the cancers are caused by radiation and not other factors.

Vogtle fired up two reactors in the late 1980s, and the Southern Co. is seeking regulatory approval to start up new units there. The Blue Ridge group opposes that move and commissioned the cancer death study late last year.

It found that since the reactors went online there has been a 25 percent increase in the cancer death rate in Burke County, while nationally the death rate has declined by 4 percent, said Louis Zeller, nuclear campaign coordinator for the group.

"There is an increase in Burke County that goes contrary to what is happening in the rest of the country," he said.

An Augusta Chronicle analysis of data from the Georgia Division of Public Health found a cancer death rate of 225 per 100,000, slightly below the group's rate of 231, but data for three years were not available. The U.S. cancer death rate is slightly below Burke's, at 207, and Georgia's was slightly below that for the same period, at 204.

Study author Joseph J. Mangano, the executive director of the New York City-based Radiation and Public Health Project, noted the area's higher rates of poverty and higher percentage of minorities, who traditionally have suffered higher death rates from many cancers.

"My point is this area has always been poor and high-minority," he said in a phone interview from New Jersey. "If you look at the period before Vogtle began operating, some of the death rates are actually low. The Burke County death rate was well below the U.S. And afterwards it was high. One would have to look at it further, but it's not apparent that the poverty status changed drastically in Burke County from the late '80s until now."

The Chronicle analysis also noted higher cancer death rates than Burke's in some surrounding counties, such as Wilkes.

"The more-populated counties and the less-populated counties, there are some differences," Mr. Zeller said. "But the overall trend is very plain. And that is that cancer deaths have increased, particularly as compared with the overall trend in the United States going down."

But Mr. Mangano said the report does not provide proof that radiation, whose emissions had increased, is the culprit.

"This report is really just a beginning, but it does raise, I believe, serious questions that should be answered," he said.

Georgia Power spokeswoman Carol Boatright said the company would review the report, but government studies around nuclear plants found no cancer link.

Judy Stocker, of Keysville, a member of the Women's Action of New Directions group, said the report has spurred her to try to stop any expansion of the plant.

Reach Tom Corwin at [phone] or [e-mail].