Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!cbosgd!ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
From: carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.sci
Subject: Re: Nuclear power vs Coal vs Alternatives
Message-ID: <519@gargoyle.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 11-Jul-86 13:40:02 EDT
Article-I.D.: gargoyle.519
Posted: Fri Jul 11 13:40:02 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 13-Jul-86 02:40:23 EDT
References: <442@meccts.UUCP> <2238@peora.UUCP>
Reply-To: carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes)
Organization: U. of Chicago, Computer Science Dept.
Lines: 24
Xref: watmath net.politics:17301 net.sci:1220

>>If you want to show that nuclear power is too dangerous, then simply
>>show a power source that can produce the same amount of power with a
>>lower cost in human life.  Remember that coal emmissions kill an
>>estimated 10-50 thousand people a year and that radon gas (which
>>collects in tightly insulated homes) is suspected to cause up to 10
>>thousand cancers a year.  [Michael Stein]
>
>I read a book that did an analysis like this a few years ago, "The
>Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear". I don't recall the author's
>name.  [Joel Upchurch]

Petr Beckmann's book appeared about ten years ago.  Most thoughtful
opponents of nuclear power are familiar with his line of reasoning.
I recently posted an article explaining some of the problems with
this count-the-dead-bodies-per-megawatt-hour type of argument.  So
far I have seen no response.

If we are going to have a battle of the books, have any of the
pro-nukes read anything by Amory and Hunter Lovins, such as *Soft
Energy Paths*, *Brittle Power*, and *Energy Unbound*?  These are well
informed and thoughtful discussions of energy policy which provide no
aid and comfort to the nuclear advocates.

Richard Carnes