Should we be concerned when an environmental project such as the disposal of nuclear wates is a declared safe,

Question

tht since only 1,000 human deaths will occur in 10,000 years? Explain

Answer 1

Yes, there are many risks and ways to die and just because someone makes and estimate does not mean that it is right. However worry is not going to do you any good either, having information about the reliability of the information can be comforting if it from a trusted source and throughly researched. We all live different levels of risk from different threats, the standards set for government are generally high, but can occasionally be misleading due to conflicts of interest and inexperience.

With matters of nuclear waste there is much uncertainty due to the longevity of the danger and the difficulties of predictions.

Answer 2

According to one estimate, 10,000 people die EVERY SINGLE DAY in the United States alone. The gobal death rate may be 146,000 people PER DAY.

The number of deaths in a typical plane crash, or even the WTC bombing is statistically small compared to all other causes of death.

The nuclear scenario you discuss is one death every 10 years or 1 out of 532,900,000 deaths.

That is what I call safe.

Answer 3

Oh it won't be safe for 10 000 years, but the general public doesn't know that.. nuclear waste is secure but even that is a play on words as there is no containment facility that has successfully contained nuclear waste for long term. The Uranium mines of Northern Saskatchewan are a perfect example of an environmental disaster/test on how to store radioactive waste. They have some good ideas but none can be declared safe or secure as the materials are still radioactive and some have permated through the containment cells. Its a work in progress... Best idea don't dig up the uranium and leave it there.

Hope that helps

Answer 4

"Safe" is a silly word to describe anything if you're analyzing risk.  Risk is relative to benefits.  The death rate cited above is 0.1 person/year.  Cars kill 30,000 people a year, 300,000 times as much, but we're not about to ban them.

Until global warming and the real costs of imported oil became obvious, you could make a case that nuclear power was too risky.  That day is long gone.

The issue now is not whether or not to build nuclear plants.  We must.  The issue is how can we lower the risk as much as possible by good engineering of nuclear plants and waste disposal facilities.