3 ms·
Well, he claims that these lives "would have been lost due to air pollution". The question is, what was the alternative considered for this study? Probably the
by rob74 5y ago
Well, he claims that these lives "would have been lost due to air pollution". The question is, what was the alternative considered for this study? Probably the worst kind of coal plant they could imagine, without any kind of filtration technology? Because I'm pretty sure that the number of lives lost in the last 50 years due to pollution from coal power plants in, let's say, Germany (Ok, West Germany before 1990) is pretty close to zero.
Ok, there are of course other countries with less strict regulations, but then the question is this: would a country that is not capable to regulate its coal plant operators so that they don't kill people via pollution be capable to regulate its nuclear plant operators so that they operate their plants safely?
- danbruc 5y agoThe problem is that »[...] lives that would have been lost due to air pollution.« makes no sense. The closest meaningful literal interpretation would be, that the additional air pollution would have effect no one except two million people and those would have died earlier than without the additional air pollution. But that still doesn't tell much unless you specify how much earlier they would have died. In reality additional air pollution, on average, shortens everyone's life expectancy by a certain amount and that is a meaningful measure. So maybe the claim is supposed to mean that nuclear power saved about two million times the average life expectancy during the last 50 years which is very roughly one week for everyone. But it is not even clear if the number is supposed to be a global number or for a more specific area.