> How many people here in Ohio would have been sickened
> or killed by radiation if the rotted-out reactor lid
> hadn't been caught barely in time?
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/BOOK.html
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter6.html
++++++++++++++
6. The fearsome reactor meltdown accident
[...]
the authors of the two principal reports on the Three Mile Island accident agree that even if there had been a complete meltdown in that reactor, there very probably would have been essentially no harm to human health and no environmental damage. I know of no technical reports that have claimed otherwise. Moreover, all scientific studies agree that in the great majority of meltdown accidents there would be no detectable effects on human health, immediately or in later years. According to the government estimate, a meltdown would have to occur every week or so somewhere in the United States before nuclear power would be as dangerous as coal burning.
Even the Chernobyl accident, which was worse in many ways than any meltdown that can be envisioned for an American reactor, caused no injuries outside the plant. That is not to say that it is impossible to have fatalities caused by a meltdown, but it is estimated that in no more than 1 in a 100 meltdowns could any be obviously related to the accident.
++++++++++++++
While I agree the nuclear is much less dangerous than coal. I do have
to point out that your statement on Chernobyl is incorrect from the
information that I have read.
The core was breached and was visible from the local community. A
number of people died from the results of direct radiation exposure.
The release of radioactives necessitated the evacuation of a large area.
Those who insisted on remaining eventually died as a result. Then of
course there were those that died as a result of the Russian method of
doing things in sealing the containment vessel. Your zero number is wrong.
Mitchell James
> your statement on Chernobyl [...] Your zero number is wrong.