On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 11:20:27AM -0400, Apptech wrote:
> > The point is though that everyone thinks that solar, wind,
> > and
> > hydroelectric are "clean" energy resources as compared to
> > nuclear. The fact
> > of the matter is that each contributes damage in their own
> > ways.

> Indeed.  But nuclear has ionising radiation which, as well as causing
> cancers, can alter reproductive outcomes.

That's a given Russell. The question is what's the real risk.
I'm about to jump in my car and go to work. I'm much more likely to be
killed in a car accident than getting cancer from a nuclear power plant.

The most disastrous and most covered US nuclear accident was Three Mile
Island. To hear the story told it was a total meltdown and the state on
Pennsylvania was made barren. But the truth of the matter is that in the
absolute worst accident in the nearly 60 years of US nuclear power
generation, no one died and the incidence of the terrifying nuclear
radiation induced cancer ridden mutant baby zombies was statistically
imperceptable:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2385551.stm

Accidents happen. We all know that. The question lays in the frequency and
severity of these accidents. Tens of thousands die each year in cars, yet
we drive them each and everyday. No one dies from nuclear power, but yet 60
years later, it's still the boogieman.

Sigh.

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