President Obama finally weighed in on gun control. He didn't talk about assault rifles or the large magazines, and that is a shame. But what he does talk about is important - namely improved and consistent background checks. And he tries to make it clear that we can have some gun control without people being afraid we are taking away the second amendment. In other words he is advocating for a common sense solution.
Unfortunately, I am afraid he might have lost the moment. Will there be any momentum behind this - either natural or created by the administration? I'm not optimistic.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Nuclear Japan
I must admit that I have been paying more attention to the drama around Japan's nuclear reactors than to the number of deaths from the earthquake and tsunami (1,800 last count). I have learned a lot about nuclear reactors during all of this - relying on Physics for Future Presidents (by Richard Muller), the New York Times, and especially the Wall Street Journal.
Throughout all of this, I still think nuclear power can be a very useful energy source. And I think the danger is overrated (while the negative aspects of other fuel sources underrated). In Muller's book, he says that the number of excess cancer deaths* from cancer at Chernobyl is 4,000. Note that Chernobyl is the only full nuclear meltdown. The number of excess cancer deaths from Three Mile Island is 1. Compare that to Bhopal's chemical plant leak which killed 5,000 people instantly and may total 20,000 deaths.
I could be wrong, but from reading the news accounts, it doesn't seem like anyone will die immediately - either from explosions or radiation poisoning. And since a full meltdown (ie nuclear fuel melting through the containment structures) still seems unlikely, I think estimated deaths from cancer due to exposure will also be very low.
The bottom line to me is that we can make these technologies safer - and I think that will be the ultimate change that happens as a result of these partial meltdowns. I think we'll systems with much better back-ups, like longer battery power in the case that diesel generators fail and cannot be brought back online.
* Muller used the linear hypothesis when estimating excess cancer deaths.
Throughout all of this, I still think nuclear power can be a very useful energy source. And I think the danger is overrated (while the negative aspects of other fuel sources underrated). In Muller's book, he says that the number of excess cancer deaths* from cancer at Chernobyl is 4,000. Note that Chernobyl is the only full nuclear meltdown. The number of excess cancer deaths from Three Mile Island is 1. Compare that to Bhopal's chemical plant leak which killed 5,000 people instantly and may total 20,000 deaths.
I could be wrong, but from reading the news accounts, it doesn't seem like anyone will die immediately - either from explosions or radiation poisoning. And since a full meltdown (ie nuclear fuel melting through the containment structures) still seems unlikely, I think estimated deaths from cancer due to exposure will also be very low.
The bottom line to me is that we can make these technologies safer - and I think that will be the ultimate change that happens as a result of these partial meltdowns. I think we'll systems with much better back-ups, like longer battery power in the case that diesel generators fail and cannot be brought back online.
* Muller used the linear hypothesis when estimating excess cancer deaths.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)