Shopping Cart -

Your cart is currently empty.
Upgrade to today
for only an extra Cxx.xx

You get:

plus This issue of xxxxxxxxxxx.
plus Instant access to the latest issue of 340+ of our top selling titles.
plus Unlimited access to 30000+ back issues
plus No contract or commitment. If you decide that PocketmagsPlus is not for you, you can cancel your monthly subscription online at any time. Auto-renews at €10,99 per month, unless cancelled.
Upgrade for €1.09
Then just €10,99 / month. Cancel anytime.
Learn more
Pocketmags Digital Magazines
Pocketmags Digital Magazines
   You are currently viewing the Italy version of the site.
Would you like to switch to your local site?
Leggi ovunque Read anywhere
Modalità di pagamento Pocketmags Payment Types
Trusted site
A Pocketmags si ottiene
Fatturazione sicura
Ultime offerte
Web & App Reader
Loyalty Points

Letters to the Editor

Nuclear Power and Risk Psychology

In his excellent article on nuclear power (“Nuclear Power and the Psychology of Evalu ating Risk,” November/Decem ber 2016), Daniel Vogel compares nuclear power to a hypothetical perfect alternative that is completely risk free. In spite of doing so, he makes an excellent case for why nuclear power is not the dirty and dangerous energy source it is made out to be.

How does nuclear power stack up to a real alternative such as coal? Coal miners are subject to black lung disease. Their deaths are every bit as horrible as what people imagine dying from radiation poisoning would be like. And coal mining has despoiled vast tracts of land in the “coal country” parts of West Virginia and Kentucky. But what about the storage of radioactive materials? The mining and burning of coal concentrates chemical toxins like arsenic and mercury. After ten thousand years, almost all the radioactivity in nuclear waste has cooked off. After ten thousand years, all of the toxicity of the arsenic, mercury, and the many other toxins in the tailings produced by the mining and burning of coal remains. Coal is the worst, but there are problems with all of the alternatives. The question should not be the one that is usually asked, namely “Are there problems with nuclear?” but instead, “Are the problems with nuclear greater or less than those of the alternatives?”

Purchase options below
Find the complete article and many more in this issue of Skeptical Inquirer - March April 2017
If you own the issue, Login to read the full article now.
Single Digital Issue
March April 2017
This issue and other back issues are not included in a new Skeptical Inquirer subscription. Subscriptions include the latest regular issue and new issues released during your subscription.
Annual Digital Subscription
Only € 3,16 per issue

View Issues

About Skeptical Inquirer

The Selfish Gene revisited RICHARD DAWKINS JAMES RANDI Interview CSICon Las Vegas 2016 A Special Section God's Own Medicine PAUL A. OFFIT and more...