|
|
|
|
|
|
by freeflight
1876 days ago
|
|
|
> Deaths per TWh for nuclear are comparable to wind and solar. A statistic that only works because epidemiological studies into the long term effects of radiation exposure are extremely difficult, complex and time consuming. Something made even more difficult by the fact that we blasted uranium fallout in the atmosphere that's hanging around to this day, so getting a non-affected control group has become pretty much impossible. Ain't helping that any research attempting to investigate the problem will very quickly be labeled as highly controversial by pro-nuclear lobbies [0] [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2696975/ |
|
|
By comparison, atmospheric nuclear tests added 0.11 mSv at their peak in 1963, declining to 0.005 mSv/year today. Chernobyl added 0.04 mSv in 1986, declining to 0.002 today. The nuclear fuel cycle adds 0.0002 to the global average, and is required to be less than 1 mSv for all members of the public.
The highest natural background radiation is in Ramsar, Iran, with 6.0 mSv/year. Studies are ongoing but the evidence so far shows no negative health effects.
Note that Sieverts are normalized to the health effects on the human body. Any concerns about different types of radioactivity are already accounted for in this measurement.
Chernobyl and Fukushima of course caused larger exposures to nearby inhabitants, and these exposures are accounted for in the statistics I mentioned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert