3 ms·
Thanks for providing references - there's some subtlety in the analysis you link to (on ourworldindata.org) about the human impact of nuclear energy production.
by jka 6y ago
Thanks for providing references - there's some subtlety in the analysis you link to (on ourworldindata.org) about the human impact of nuclear energy production.
While it does state that nuclear and renewables are both comparatively much safer for humans than other forms of energy generation, it does contain two different harm rates for nuclear.
You're quoting a little selectively by stating that nuclear is safer; that corresponds with the 2016 study. The other study, published in 2007, states that renewables are safer.
Relevant snippet from the explainer section in the footer drop-down in the article:
"The largest differentiator here is the period which the Sovacool et al. (2016) estimates cover. They report normalized death rates over the limited period from 1990 to 2013. This means the 1986 Chernobyl accident was not included. Sovacool et al. (2016) only include deaths from the Fukushima accident, with 573 attributed deaths. It is useful to note here that not all deaths were a direct result of the accident: for Fukushima, there were no direct deaths from the disaster; one confirmed death from radiation exposure; and the rest noted as premature deaths from evacuation and displacement of populations in the surrounding area."
- arcticbull 6y agoAh, you know, I actually didn't catch that until after I posted. I used to use an older source that didn't make that distinction ([1]) but I had trouble finding it and dropped in the newer one after a cursory read-through. I appreciate you adding the clarifying analysis! I think the newer one provides a more balanced take. I will say it seems disingenuous to include the death toll of the tsunami towards nuclear energy -- except of course the one individual who died of radiation exposure; I can't help but suspect the same ~500-ish people would have died had the plant been coal or oil. [1] https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-ener...
- jka 6y agoNo probs, thanks for the clarification! I tend to be in the camp of "nuclear power generation risks are extremely low when well-operated and maintained by responsible and effective governance". Meanwhile I'm also in the camp of "governance and maintenance tend to degrade once systems are widespread enough that people begin to be less accountable and become more complacent", which means I'm skeptical about whether scaling nuclear energy generation is a good idea.
- FooHentai 6y ago>I will say it seems disingenuous to include the death toll of the tsunami towards nuclear energy ~16000 people died from the Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami. The 573 figure is from the 2012 Yomiuri Shimbun survey, based on "A disaster-related death certificate issued when a death is not directly caused by a tragedy, but by "fatigue or the aggravation of a chronic disease due to the disaster" An IMO reasonable measure. Sadly the same data will never be available for Chernobyl due to the political reality surrounding the event.
- arcticbull 6y agoI suggest you read the UNSCEAR report. It's collated about 20 years of data into a 600 page report about Chernobyl. I'd suggest it's probably one of the most thorough and detailed such works put together, ever. It covers all manner of chronic disease, excess mortality, and even mental health outcomes of people who believed they were somehow contaminated. That pins the number at 4,000. [1] At your suggestion I'll read the survey you mentioned. [1] https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/05-09-2005-chernobyl-the-true-scale-of-the-accident https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/05-09-2005-chernobyl-th...