Considering the thousands of deaths directly attributable to coal mining over the past century -- not to mention the innumerable health problems associated with pollution -- does it really make sense to argue that nuclear power is too dangerous or dirty to be deployed more widely in the United States? I wonder how many lives would be saved each year if environmentalists would quit obstructing nuclear power?
Get your Tim Geithner TAX CHEAT! stamps!
4 Comments
Leave a comment
The comment login system is acting strange. If you get an error message saying you aren't logged in when you are, just reload the comment page and try again. I'm trying to track this bug down, but it's not easy.
So why can't we sue the environmental organizations for wrongful death in these cases? While, ultimately, congress makes the laws, it's these groups, through their lobbyists, which do the real damage, but by proxy so that they presumably don't have to accept any sort of responsibility for their actions.
The mining deaths are nothing compared to the pollution effects. EPA estimates them at ~25,000 premature deaths, along with ~$100 billion in indirect economic damages, from coal plant emissions. Over the last century, coal has killed millions in the US alone. Coal plants are also the leading single cause of global warming.
Western nuclear power has never, over its 40-year history, had any measurable impact on public health or the environment. It also has negligible impact on global warming.
BTW, that's 25,000 deaths (and $100 billion) each year. (Oops)
I guess the argument you could make is that while far fewer people would die per year from nuclear power than coal mining, the risk is to a far greater number of people at one particular time from a meltdown/sabotage/attack. Not to mention the fact that those casualties would all be people whose only fault was choosing to live too close to a plant. The miners chose their hazardous livelihood.