3 ms·

...the production of nuclear power has killed zero people in that period. This particular assertion seems unlikely to me. People die while mining coal, but th

by jcl 18y ago

...the production of nuclear power has killed zero people in that period. This particular assertion seems unlikely to me. People die while mining coal, but they don't die while mining uranium?

SwellJoe 18y ago
I can't find any modern numbers of deaths from uranium mining (though plenty of information about old mines, and a legacy of cancer risk increase around those mines, so there probably is a pretty good debate to be had about that legacy and how to legislatively insure the danger is removed in the future), so it seems to either be "none", or "very few". I imagine some mining related deaths would probably happen if we completely convert to nuclear. But, the amount of uranium required is dramatically less, so far fewer humans would be needed for mining it. The sheer volume of coal required is a big part of the problem, and the processing of coal produces other opportunities for people to get hurt or killed. Uranium processing could also be dangerous...but again, the volume needed is much lower. It's just a numbers game, really, when it comes to direct and indirect deaths and injuries, and we'd all love for there to be a completely safe, completely clean, completely free source of energy...but that's not an option. We have to choose amongst the candidates we have available. Nuclear wins in pretty much every category over coal. And, since solar and wind power are not yet feasible for a majority of the US, moving to nuclear is the best option in many cases. I'm not saying nuclear is perfect, but nuclear is certainly dramatically better than coal.
kmavm 18y ago
While I was in my senior year in college (1999) at Brown, there was a fatal accident at a fuel reprocessing facility in Japan. It was a criticality accident; some solution of Ur was put in a bucket or something when it needed to be in a nice, skinny cylinder to stay sub-critical. Three workers died, and they all saw the "blue flash" from Cerenkov radiation in their optic fluid. I only happen to know this because I was taking a class on radiation and health at the time, and the professor found it topical; I got the impression that things like this happen with some regularity. Fuel reprocessing plants are much less heavily scrutinized than the power plants themselves, since they are less likely to cause massive damage to the surrounding populace. I don't have the numbers to hand, but my impression is that if you're looking for serious worker safety issues in nuclear energy, you should look to the reprocessing plants.
Kadin 17y ago
I have heard -- but don't have a source to cite -- that there are very few uranium mines currently in operation, because there was too much ore mined back in the 70s and 80s. The mining companies (principally in Canada and Australia) vastly overestimated demand; when TMI happened and the US stopped building new plants, suddenly there was enough on-hand for years. Apparently there are whole ghost towns in Canada that just closed up shop as a result. So it wouldn't surprise me if there hadn't been any U mining deaths recently, even though the mining is on average potentially more hazardous than coal. Keep in mind though, that even if Uranium was spectacularly more difficult and dangerous to mine, the volume of it that needs to be mined is so much smaller than coal, that it would still be a better option in terms of safety overall. (You'd just have to pay those miners a ton in return for the risk!)

by jcl 18y ago

...the production of nuclear power has killed zero people in that period. This particular assertion seems unlikely to me. People die while mining coal, but they don't die while mining uranium?

SwellJoe 18y ago

I can't find any modern numbers of deaths from uranium mining (though plenty of information about old mines, and a legacy of cancer risk increase around those mines, so there probably is a pretty good debate to be had about that legacy and how to legislatively insure the danger is removed in the future), so it seems to either be "none", or "very few". I imagine some mining related deaths would probably happen if we completely convert to nuclear. But, the amount of uranium required is dramatically less, so far fewer humans would be needed for mining it. The sheer volume of coal required is a big part of the problem, and the processing of coal produces other opportunities for people to get hurt or killed. Uranium processing could also be dangerous...but again, the volume needed is much lower. It's just a numbers game, really, when it comes to direct and indirect deaths and injuries, and we'd all love for there to be a completely safe, completely clean, completely free source of energy...but that's not an option. We have to choose amongst the candidates we have available. Nuclear wins in pretty much every category over coal. And, since solar and wind power are not yet feasible for a majority of the US, moving to nuclear is the best option in many cases. I'm not saying nuclear is perfect, but nuclear is certainly dramatically better than coal.

kmavm 18y ago

While I was in my senior year in college (1999) at Brown, there was a fatal accident at a fuel reprocessing facility in Japan. It was a criticality accident; some solution of Ur was put in a bucket or something when it needed to be in a nice, skinny cylinder to stay sub-critical. Three workers died, and they all saw the "blue flash" from Cerenkov radiation in their optic fluid. I only happen to know this because I was taking a class on radiation and health at the time, and the professor found it topical; I got the impression that things like this happen with some regularity. Fuel reprocessing plants are much less heavily scrutinized than the power plants themselves, since they are less likely to cause massive damage to the surrounding populace. I don't have the numbers to hand, but my impression is that if you're looking for serious worker safety issues in nuclear energy, you should look to the reprocessing plants.

Kadin 17y ago

I have heard -- but don't have a source to cite -- that there are very few uranium mines currently in operation, because there was too much ore mined back in the 70s and 80s. The mining companies (principally in Canada and Australia) vastly overestimated demand; when TMI happened and the US stopped building new plants, suddenly there was enough on-hand for years. Apparently there are whole ghost towns in Canada that just closed up shop as a result. So it wouldn't surprise me if there hadn't been any U mining deaths recently, even though the mining is on average potentially more hazardous than coal. Keep in mind though, that even if Uranium was spectacularly more difficult and dangerous to mine, the volume of it that needs to be mined is so much smaller than coal, that it would still be a better option in terms of safety overall. (You'd just have to pay those miners a ton in return for the risk!)