A nuclear accident
involves an unlimited number of people, for an unlimited time.
Actually, no. There is no such thing as an unlimited number of people. People are finite and there is always a limit. Let's not be careless about our use of English, please. <bg>
But back to your point, it appears that Three Mile Island had fewer negative consequences, on fewer people, than Love Canal, a non-nuclear environmental disaster. Even the worst accident at a nuclear power plant would probably be less devastating to fewer people than the damage we intentionally inflicted on Serbia and Kosovo this Spring. But how much attention have YOU seen paid to the environmental damage we caused there? (Aside: ah ha, another example of the bias of the liberal media in failing to cover that. Hee hee!)
Are the long-term environmental and health effects of Chernobyle (sp) greater than the long-term environmental and health effects of burning coal and oil to replace that power? (Include the deaths from mining and drilling for the replacement coal and oil, the environmental destruction from the digging and mine tailings, the health effects of smog and particulates, and the contribution of heat to the greenhouse effect, among all the other effects.) I have seen no studies on that.
Oh, Joan, resident research expert, any help here?? |
