Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Without launching into my usual nastiness, I cannot say how many times someone has reported to me that they knew someone who had some kind of nuclear exposure that "caused" their cancer.    This assumes that there is no other way to get cancer other than working with nuclear energy.

Both of my parents died from cancer and neither of them worked in nuclear plants.   In fact when they got cancer neither of them were given special insights to the cause of their conditions.

Many people die each year from automobiles, but there is no movement afoot to ban automobiles, even though I personally know many people personally who have definitively and unambiguously been killed by automobiles.

Moreover, there are many people who are definitively and unambiguously been killed by fossil fuel processing plants and fossil fuel waste.

I am more inclined than most to call for limits on automobiles and bans on fossil fuel wastes.

I have a term for the claim that only nuclear energy must be perfect to be acceptable.   I call it "nuclear exceptionalism."  

No form of energy is risk free.   Some energy is risk minimized.   That energy is nuclear energy.

by NNadir on Tue Jun 19th, 2007 at 02:19:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I want to ban automobiles. And coal plants. And nuclear plants. So there.

The risks minimized for nuclear are only those well-known and quantified beforehand, and not even all of them (those that would make nuclear much more expensive, like retrofitting protection hulls, are ignored). Yet several incidents show up risks that weren't realised by the risk calculators. The appearance of such is more likely in more complex systems. Thus your risk calculations cover always only a fraction of the actual risks.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 06:06:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Without launching into my usual nastiness, I cannot say how many times someone has reported to me that they knew someone who had some kind of nuclear exposure that "caused" their cancer.    This assumes that there is no other way to get cancer other than working with nuclear energy.

So if other things could have caused cancer, we just can't establish whether the nuclear industry caused it, and we should just assume it is not there?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 06:08:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well let's put it this way:   There have been zillions of epidemiological studies on the subject and they're all over the place, but mostly they don't show much.  One I heard about suggested it was more dangerous to work in an office than in a nuclear plant.   (In a nuclear plant you're monitored.

If people did zillions of epidemiological studies of coal plants - and they don't - one would find cancers as well.

If we did studies of people who work with silicon, we might find something there.

I don't understand why only nuclear energy gets an "assumption" of cancer.    I'll bet that the number of cancers of the lung resulting from air pollution number in the millions each year.  

by NNadir on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 09:01:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Silicosis.

People are studying the effects of silicon, and in the Netherlands working with sandstone (cutting, polishing) is classed as dangerous (or higher?) than removing asbestos.

We should ban sand!! No, wait...

by Nomad (Bjinse) on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 11:18:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series