James Newtons Massmind wrote:

> Personally, my guess is that fossil fuel pollution accounts for more death
> than nuclear power ever has. 

That is probably true. But then, you'd need to look at the damage per W
generated for a comparison. There must be a reason why insurance companies
refuse to insure nuclear plants. They are usually not prone to let go of a
business where there is one.

> And I would also guess that not a dime of federal funds was actually put
> to work to study, publish or correct the effects of that pollution. I
> would be very happy to be proven wrong.

From
http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_costs.html#If%20wind%20energy%20is%20competitive,%20why%20does%20it%20need%20a%20tax%20credit%20subsidy%20from%20the%20government%20Isnt%20this%20government%20interference%20in%20the%20free%20market,
or http://tinyurl.com/rboop (not a first hand source though): 

"To take just one example, the federal government has paid out $35 billion
over the past 30 years to cover the medical expenses of coal miners who
suffer from 'black lung disease.'"

That's some form of pollution effect that in some way and to some degree
seemed to have been studied and remedied.

Gerhard

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist