MIT on the health effects of Fukushima

[trud]

http://amps-web.amps.ms.mit.edu/public/alumni/2010-2011/2011apr27/

1:39 "It may even be that the number of radiation-induced fatalities associated with the accident will turn out to be zero."

18:48 More on the health effects, including the three workers with the maximum exposure.

26:00 "The number of fatalities that have been associated with the operation of the nuclear fuel cycle and nuclear power plants is much much less than the health consequences, including fatalities, associated with coal, oil, and other kinds of fossil fuels." (orders of magnitude less.)

31:00 "Without nuclear in the mix it's going to be effectively impossible for us to achieve our carbon reduction emission goals." (regardless of large increases in solar, etc.)

[hlthe2b]

1. MIT may be a leading university for tech expertise...

But, somehow getting "health" statistics and advisement from them is about like going to CDC and NIH for advice on repairing your car.

Umm. Yummm... Radiation contaminated milk--the breakfast of champions! (short term champions)

[Warren Stupidity]

2. Did they mention that they don't really know what the long term effects

are? Or did they leave that part out. What I have heard is that there are two ways of looking at this from a risk assessment view: individual risk is likely very small, small enough to discount entirely as long as you are not anywhere near the high-radiation zone. Global risk to the population is not insignificant. Again, as they don't really know how to quantify the risk, ("It may even be that") it is all guess work. Across the planet unlucky people will lose the nuclear accident lottery, we just don't know how many.

[Poll_Blind]

3. A great example why all information consumers should use critical thinking before...

...blindly accepting information from any source.

PB

[marions ghost]

4. the bottom line at MIT

Everybody needs to read the MIT report on nuclear energy (Sept 2010) where nuclear is pushed by MIT with funding from business interests. Here's some commentary on it:

-----------------------
The MIT study (2010) correctly notes that ‘nuclear electricity costs are driven by high up-front capital costs,’ whereas natural gas and coal costs are more dependent on fuel costs,” said Mariotte, “thus, it vastly underestimates nuclear capital costs and presents a grossly misleading picture of the costs of electricity to the consumer if nuclear reactors are built, as well as understating the risk of nuclear loans to the taxpayer.”

Mariotte noted that the study only compared nuclear costs to natural gas and coal, and not to alternatives like wind power, solar power, geothermal and energy efficiency technologies. Some of these alternatives, like wind and energy efficiency, are already much cheaper than nuclear power and solar is rapidly declining in price while increasing in its efficiency. Earlier this week, the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory released a report detailing the potential of offshore wind resources for the U.S., finding that offshore wind alone could generate more than four times the entire current electrical demand in the U.S. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/45889.pdf

Mariotte pointed out that the MIT study acknowledges “generous financial support from the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and from Idaho National Laboratory, the Nuclear Energy Institute, Areva, GEHitachi, Westinghouse, Energy Solutions, and Nuclear Assurance Corporation.”

“Areva, GE-Hitachi and Westinghouse are the three reactor vendors hoping for taxpayer money to pay for their products,” said Mariotte. “It is at least suspicious that the study would support their aims using a cost estimate that simply does not stand up to scrutiny.”

http://www.nirs.org/press/09-16-2010/1