Blogger's table of falsified data

Deaths per TWh for all energy sources: Rooftop solar power is actually more dangerous than Chernobyl

Coal – USA............................................15
Oil.......................................................36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas............................................4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass.....................................12
Peat.....................................................12
Solar (rooftop).......................................0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind.....................................................0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro....................................................0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao ............1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear................................................... 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
Volume 1181 Issue Chernobyl
Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, Pages 31 - 220

Chapter II. Consequences of the Chernobyl Catastrophe for Public Health

Alexey B. Nesterenko a , Vassily B. Nesterenko a ,† and Alexey V. Yablokov b
a Institute of Radiation Safety (BELRAD), Minsk, Belarus b Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
Address for correspondence: Alexey V. Yablokov, Russian Academy of Sciences, Leninsky Prospect 33, Office 319, 119071 Moscow, Russia. Voice: +7-495-952-80-19; fax: +7-495-952-80-19. Yablokov@ecopolicy.ru
†Deceased


ABSTRACT

Problems complicating a full assessment of the effects from Chernobyl included official secrecy and falsification of medical records by the USSR for the first 3.5 years after the catastrophe and the lack of reliable medical statistics in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. Official data concerning the thousands of cleanup workers (Chernobyl liquidators) who worked to control the emissions are especially difficult to reconstruct. Using criteria demanded by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) resulted in marked underestimates of the number of fatalities and the extent and degree of sickness among those exposed to radioactive fallout from Chernobyl. Data on exposures were absent or grossly inadequate, while mounting indications of adverse effects became more and more apparent. Using objective information collected by scientists in the affected areas—comparisons of morbidity and mortality in territories characterized by identical physiography, demography, and economy, which differed only in the levels and spectra of radioactive contamination—revealed significant abnormalities associated with irradiation, unrelated to age or sex (e.g., stable chromosomal aberrations), as well as other genetic and nongenetic pathologies.

<snip>

This section describes the spectrum and the scale of the nonmalignant diseases that have been found among exposed populations. Adverse effects as a result of Chernobyl irradiation have been found in every group that has been studied. Brain damage has been found in individuals directly exposed—liquidators and those living in the contaminated territories, as well as in their offspring. Premature cataracts; tooth and mouth abnormalities; and blood, lymphatic, heart, lung, gastrointestinal, urologic, bone, and skin diseases afflict and impair people, young and old alike. Endocrine dysfunction, particularly thyroid disease, is far more common than might be expected, with some 1,000 cases of thyroid dysfunction for every case of thyroid cancer, a marked increase after the catastrophe. There are genetic damage and birth defects especially in children of liquidators and in children born in areas with high levels of radioisotope contamination. Immunological abnormalities and increases in viral, bacterial, and parasitic diseases are rife among individuals in the heavily contaminated areas. For more than 20 years, overall morbidity has remained high in those exposed to the irradiation released by Chernobyl. One cannot give credence to the explanation that these numbers are due solely to socioeconomic factors. The negative health consequences of the catastrophe are amply documented in this chapter and concern millions of people.

The most recent forecast by international agencies predicted there would be between 9,000 and 28,000 fatal cancers between 1986 and 2056, obviously underestimating the risk factors and the collective doses. On the basis of I-131 and Cs-137 radioisotope doses to which populations were exposed and a comparison of cancer mortality in the heavily and the less contaminated territories and pre- and post-Chernobyl cancer levels, a more realistic figure is 212,000 to 245,000 deaths in Europe and 19,000 in the rest of the world. High levels of Te-132, Ru-103, Ru-106, and Cs-134 persisted months after the Chernobyl catastrophe and the continuing radiation from Cs-137, Sr-90, Pu, and Am will generate new neoplasms for hundreds of years.

A detailed study reveals that 3.8–4.0% of all deaths in the contaminated territories of Ukraine and Russia from 1990 to 2004 were caused by the Chernobyl catastrophe. The lack of evidence of increased mortality in other affected countries is not proof of the absence of effects from the radioactive fallout. Since 1990, mortality among liquidators has exceeded the mortality rate in corresponding population groups. From 112,000 to 125,000 liquidators died before 2005—that is, some 15% of the 830,000 members of the Chernobyl cleanup teams. The calculations suggest that the Chernobyl catastrophe has already killed several hundred thousand human beings in a population of several hundred million that was unfortunate enough to live in territories affected by the fallout. The number of Chernobyl victims will continue to grow over many future generations...

Action on Iowa nuclear power proposal delayed; outcome in doubt

By James Q. Lynch, Gazette Des Moines Bureau
Posted: Thursday, March 8, 2012 10:00 pm


DES MOINES — Action on controversial nuclear power legislation was cancelled Thursday due to the absence of a Senate Commerce Committee member, but opponents question whether there are enough votes to move the plan to the full Senate ahead of a March 16 deadline.

The Senate Commerce Committee meeting was cancelled because Sen. Tom Rielly, D-Oskaloosa, who, according to Chairman Matt McCoy, D-Des Moines, would provide the eighth vote for House File 561 in the 15-member committee, had another commitment.

HF 561, which was approved by the House last year, would create a regulatory framework for MidAmerican to build a nuclear power plant with ratepayers assuming all or some of the cost before construction began.

Opponents argue that shifts the risk associated with building a nuclear power plant from investors to ratepayers....

One Year Post Fukushima, Americans Are Divided About the Risks of Nuclear Power
Region and age show divides over attitudes on nuclear power


NEW YORK, March 14, 2012 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- One year post-Fukushima and the nuclear disaster in Japan, American attitudes about nuclear energy have become polarized. The most recent results show a shift towards believing the risks outweigh the benefits, and now slightly more Americans believe the risks of nuclear energy outweigh the benefits (41% to 40%). In 2009 and 2011, the benefits of nuclear power outweighed the risks (44% to 34% in 2009 and 42% to 37% in 2011). Harris Poll research in 2011 was conducted before the disaster.

...

This research points to some very distinct geographic differences among Americans. Regional differences may be a reflection of familiarity. The South has the greatest concentration of nuclear power plants (almost twice as many as the East) and the highest percentage of adults who believe the benefits outweigh the risks (43%, compared to 33% in the East and 41% in the Midwest and West).

There is also a clear age divide as Baby Boomers (ages 48-66) and Matures (67 and older) are more likely to say benefits of nuclear power outweigh the risks than both Echo Boomers (ages 18-35) and Gen Xers (ages 36-47) are. Party preference is indicative of attitudes about nuclear power as well. Republicans are the most likely to believe the benefits outweigh the risks (51%) and Independents are more likely than Democrats to say the benefits outweigh the risks (43% among Independents and only 32% among Democrats). Democrats seem to be a large driver of the sentiment that risks outweigh benefits for nuclear....

Heritage Foundation Touts Nukes as Vital to American Way of Life
By Press Action

...In one of the industry’s pro-nuclear efforts, the right-wing Heritage Foundation has released a new documentary, “Powering America,” that touts nuclear power as a viable energy source for the 21st century.

In a slick trailer for the documentary film, one of the people interviewed says the public should not fear nuclear power. “Radiation simply is energy in motion. That’s from cosmic rays. That’s from radon that comes out of the ground. That’s from the food you eat,” he says. “The issue is not to be afraid of radiation. The issue is to understand it and to respect it just like any other energy source.”

The talking head correctly notes that almost all rocks in the ground contain natural radioactive compounds. These compounds emit alpha and beta radiation. But the talking head fails to note that most of this radiation gets absorbed by the rocks themselves and never makes it into the air.

Also, naturally radioactive compounds are found in the air, soil and water. So, yes, the food we eat is slightly radioactive. Our bodies are made from the food we eat so we are also a little bit radioactive.

But the ...

Energy Poverty's Strange Bedfellows
Steven F. Hayward | Washington Examiner February 15, 2011

It is no secret that the environmental movement is trying to do to coal what it did 35 years ago to nuclear power -- kill it off entirely in the name of saving the planet. The surprise is that fossil fuel energy producers and some Republican politicians seem intent on helping them. Not content to let the marketplace guide decisions about what fuel sources our electric utilities should use, some natural gas interests are aligning with environmentalists to press for "incentives," regulations and mandates for fuelswitching from coal to natural gas.

It is a classic case of what economist Bruce Yandle calls a "bootleggers and Baptists" coalition. In dry counties in the Bible Belt, Yandle explains, bootleggers who depend on their wares remaining illegal to make a profit would support the Baptist politicians who voted to keep alcohol illegal.

Natural gas interests are likely to find that in the fullness of time they will become the next target of environmentalist opposition once coal is interred next to nuclear power.

In the case of energy, natural gas interests are happily fulfilling the bootlegger role to the environmental fundamentalists who demand low-carbon moral purity from our energy supply.....

•87 percent of likely Democratic primary voters and 80 percent of likely Republican primary voters believe that the state and federal government should take steps to reduce fossil fuels, such as oil and coal that are used by cars, factories, and power plants.