Deaths per unit of energy for various sources

Re:Deaths per unit of energy for various sources by pmb on Wednesday March 16, 2011 @03:26PM (#2333481)

Not really. The official report used the numbers self reported by the USSR (not known for its bureaucratic honesty) and TORCH (The Other Report on CHernobyl) was funded by the environmental movement. So we can lower bound the deaths by 4,000 and upper bound them by 1,000,000, but after that you are on your own.

I did my own looking and came to the conclusions that "deaths" is the wrong metric, and "expected years of life lost" is the right metric. When someone dies at age 45 instead of age 60, is that a Chernobyl-caused death? What about at age 50 instead of 60? 59 instead of 75? 2 instead of 70? The answer gets more complicated the closer you look.

Ballpark: tens of thousands to even hundreds of thousands of "effective deaths" from Chernobyl, where an "effective death" is 45 years of life lost, collected from multiple affected people. Relatively few immediate deaths.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Deaths per unit of energy for various sources by alextingle on Wednesday March 16, 2011 @05:18PM (#2333966)

And what would the equivalent number for coal mining/burning be?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Deaths per unit of energy for various sources by pmb on Thursday March 17, 2011 @07:41AM (#2335782)

See the link that started this whole conversation. It has pretty good data, the only questionable part was the fact that their nuclear safety data involved taking self-reported fatalities from the USSR.

Coal is far worse than nuclear by every metric (environmental effects, deaths per TWh, etc etc) in any sane accounting scheme.

[ Parent | on HN ]