Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 v7 ucbtopaz-1.5; site ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!decvax!ucbvax!ucbtopaz!bitmap
From: bitmap@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Old King Coal
Message-ID: <461@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA>
Date: Sat, 14-Apr-84 18:26:59 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbtopaz.461
Posted: Sat Apr 14 18:26:59 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 15-Apr-84 08:25:37 EST
Organization: Univ. of Calif., Berkeley CA USA
Lines: 41

<...>
Jon White, still maintaining that nuclear power is more polluting
than coal, quotes from an article, the main thrust of which seems
to be that the tailings from uranium mills 'leaks' Thorium 230, which
has a radioactive half-life of 80,000 years.  Not pointed out, of
course, is that a long half-life means low activity:  few of the
atoms are likely to be decaying, so they 'live' longer.  Also not
addressed was another person's (Martin Taylor's?) remark that coal
burning also releases radioactive particles (radon, I think), as
well as cancer-causing particulates.

>You are also not allowing for advances in conservation,
>alternative energy, and cleaner ways of using coal.

Tit for tat, please:  the same applies to you with nuclear.

>..I don't think that it's reasonable to assign statistics like
>"one-in-a-billion" to the possibility of a reactor being hit by an
>H-bomb..."

Risk assessment is fairly mathematical, but you have a point.
Perhaps we should consider present day problems, rather than "what
might happen".

Surely, statistics exist on the number of coal-related (black-lung,
emphysema, cancer [estimates?], mine-accidents) deaths vs. the number of
nuclear-related deaths (mine accidents, cancer [estimates?]).  Does
anyone out there know where to look these up?  Unbiased references
are preferred, of course, if that is possible.

It is unlikely that I'll be able to get ahold of an in-house paper
written at Cornell University, so perhaps Mr. White would be
willing to produce some of Dr. Pohl's arguments for us.  At
present, I am still of the opinion that coal is much more dangerous
than nuclear power.

Over to you, Martin.

Sam Hall, UCB
ucbvax!ucbtopaz!bitmap