On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Chris de Morsella <cdemorse...@yahoo.com>wrote:
> No you don’t know that at all. You don’t have some crystal ball and are
> just quoting from studies that have been criticized as very much low
> balling the ultimate number of cancer deaths attributable to Chernobyl.
> Other studies have come up with much higher numbers – ranging into the
> millions. For example the TORCH report commissioned by the German Green
> Party that included areas not covered by the WHO report
The WHO is much more trustworthy than the German Green Party, the WHO has
no ax to grind but if people don't think a environmental catastrophe is
imminent nobody is going to vote for the German Green Party.
> that produced the 4000 figure you quote. It concluded that the death toll
> from cancer is more likely to be around 30,000 to 60,000 extra incurred
Even if that figure were true (and it is certainly exaggerated) it would be
no reason to turn away from nuclear. No power source, or anything else for
that matter, is 100% safe, but just in the USA alone coal power plants kill
about 13,000 people EVERY YEAR. For every person killed by nuclear power
4000 are killed by coal. And that's not even taking into consideration the
deaths caused by global warming, assuming that global warming is a bad
thing (and it might not be). Nuclear power has zero effect on global
John K Clark
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.