4,000, 60,000, 244,000 or 500,000 deaths
By Professor Peter Saunders
Is Nuclear “one of the safest ways of producing energy”?There are many reasons for rejecting the nuclear option in the “low carbon economy” as thoroughly reviewed in an ISIS report, Green Energies - 100% Renewable by 2050. One of the biggest question marks hanging over the industry is the potential of another catastrophe on the scale of Chernobyl, or worse.
The industry and its friends insist that we have nothing to worry about; both the design and the operation of nuclear power plants are far better now than they were in 1986, and there is really no chance at all that anything like Chernobyl could happen today.
For those who do not believe that any industry can operate for a long time without a serious accident – and given the current disaster in the Gulf of Mexico there must be even fewer who do – they have a second line of defence. Considering that Chernobyl was by far the worst nuclear accident that has ever occurred, it caused remarkably little harm: at most a few thousand deaths and about four thousand cases of thyroid cancer. The number of deaths per unit of energy produced has been much less than in coal mining. Far from being especially hazardous, nuclear is one of the safest ways of producing energy.
The Consumer’s Association of Penang (CAP) urges the Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang (MPPP) to immediately clean up and beautify all wet markets in Penang which are in deplorable conditions of filth and poor hygiene.
Floors in these markets were found to be slippery and potholed, cobwebs were hanging from the ceilings and rats were abundant around the stalls, especially with drains blocked with rubbish and other waste matter.
Posts
