Hacker News Reader

Comment by ghshephard | Hacker News Reader

From the sources:

"But what about Chernobyl ? The World Health Organization study in 2005 indicated that 50 people died to that point as a direct result of Chernobyl. 4000 people may eventually die earlier as a result of Chernobyl, but those deaths would be more than 20 years after the fact and the cause and effect becomes more tenuous.

He explains that there have been 4000 cases of thyroid cancer, mainly in children, but that except for nine deaths, all of them have recovered. "Otherwise, the team of international experts found no evidence for any increases in the incidence of leukemia and cancer among affected residents.""

View on HN

My point is that you or your child getting thyroid cancer, even if you or she recovers, is a pretty horrific outcome, and might deserve to be considered somehow -- not just fatalities.

True, but if you're counting that, there must surely be many other equally bad externalities worth counting; e.g. environmental damage due to oil spills and incidence of lung cancer due to air pollution from coal mining.

You have to draw the line somewhere to make the chart, and drawing it at fatalities seems sort of reasonable. It certainly doesn't seem overly gracious to nuclear power.

The elevated rates of asthma occurring in inner city kids is also pretty shitty. One of the better things they did in NYC was to shut down most of the power plants that were actually in the city.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-adjusted_life_year

that's what nuclear fanatics here don't seem to get.

as I argued in other thread about the original numbers, what matters aren't direct deaths attributed to one or the other energy source.

what matters (to me at least) is how different energy sources affect our quality of life. I suspect nuclear isn't the worst offender here, but it isn't all butterflies and roses either.

For the record: I am responsible nuclear fission proponent.

Wikipedia[1] cites a claim that France (which generates on the order of 80% of it's power from Nuclear) has the cleanest air of any industrialised nation, due in large part to the lack of fossil fuel burning plants.

I for one think that's a reasonable trade to make for a few nuclear waste dump designated areas being radioactive until we can get some breeder reactors or similar to break them down more quickly.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power

really? Some better [citation needed].

2002:

Scandinavia and the Baltic countries had the cleanest air in Europe this summer while Greece, France and Italy faced the worst smog levels, said the European Environment Agency (EEA).

http://www.am.gov.lv/en/?id=574

And BTW, I am fully in favor of replacing coal plants with nuclear.

Scandinavia is mostly driven by nuclear and hydro power. So the point still stands.

Hydro - yes. Nuclear - no.

Denmark and Norway - no nuclear.

Sweden - 45% nuclear.

Finland - 30% nuclear.

Uh, you're saying nuclear no, but then nuclear 45% of Sweden and 30% of Finland, so you must mean nuclear yes.

Smog is generated by petro chemicals, heat and sunlight.

That's why LA gets smog and Alaska doesn't - now why would hot sunny France with lots of people (and cars) get Smog but sparsely populated cold Scandanvia not?

Residents of what, the world? How did they measure that?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com