Power sources and deaths and disease, and getting the prices right

On Nuclear Power

Unfortunately, Seth Godin's fantastic chart on deaths per kWh per source of power generation is quoting from a source that attributes around 50 deaths to nuclear power, ever.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

I am very glad that epidemiological data is used to calculate air pollution deaths from coal (primarily) and oil.

It seems though that if the same were done for potentially released radiation (no matter what corporate and government sources said about how much radiation was released) the figure would be one to three orders of magnitude greater.

The lack of good, easily accessible studies on this is frightening in its own right. This article http://www.nukefree.org/node/1828 does not impress with its scientific rigor.

But given that Chernobyl radiation is still harming animals:
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/03/18/chernobyl-animals.html

And that the idea that Three Mile Island hurt no one is very likely also a lie:
http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/feb97/wing.html

Despite the fact that it does seem our bodies are really good at repairing the damage from radiation:
https://www.llnl.gov/str//Jones.html

It's quite possible that the damaging health effects of nuclear power are right up there with... rooftop solar power.

The point absolutely still stands: coal is an enormous disaster to human health and to the environment, and oil (especially with wars factored in) is not far behind.

On getting the prices right for everything

A sensible energy policy would get the prices right. Air pollution and global warming harm everyone; we should all receive compensation for that. Seems nuclear risks should have to buy us off too, but maybe just making nuclear power plant operators find their own full insurance without government coverage and cap on liability will be enough to move the prices on that massively subsidized source towards reality. Health and environmental costs for mining anything associated with wind or any other form of power should also be accounted for– not as a special surcharge on your electric bill or gasoline tax, but directly charged to the action with the human or environmental cost.

Whatever arbitrary price you put on islands going underwater, crops failing from the increase in extreme weather from global warming, or people dying from bad air quality, it's clear that the cost of coal, oil, and gas power should be at least several times higher than it is, and furthermore that compensation from this cost should be equally distributed to every person in the world.

It used to cost a dollar to drive across town. Now it costs ten dollars. You have nine extra dollars in your pocket already courtesy the fossil fuel industry having to pay some fraction of the costs of the damage to the environment and to human health that they cause. You can use the extra nine dollars to drive across town and you are exactly as well off as you were before. Or you can bike, carpool, lobby for mass transit, or not go across town and do something else altogether. You may be better off and the rest of us certainly are for your choice to police less.

A house in my neighborhood by the old railroad track, across from Lake Cochituate, has been torn down and a new one being built, maybe twice the size, wood-frame construction, earth bulldozed all over and at least two very large trees felled in the process and numerous growing ones. In 2011, this should be a crime. But rather than bloating the criminal code with precise specifications for how to build in a sustainable, responsible manner, the cost of running the construction equipment, of bringing in the materials, of heating the house, and perhaps even of the destruction of growing trees should be reflected in the monetary cost of each step.