Evaluation of energy related risk acceptance (APHA energy task force) Page: 8 of 18
16 pagesView a full description of this article.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
5
Those occasioned by the current thrust in the U. S. for the near-universal
application of cooling towers to power generating plant condensor outlet streams
seem illustrative. Parker has recently observed that U. S. industry will have
to invest an additional $8 x 1C)9 to meet the requirements of "best practicable"
water pollution control, whereas the cost of thermal discharge limitation will
be $9.5 x 10^ (4). Considering the known incidence of disease from the discharge
of heavy metals, carcinogens, mutagens, etc., with its known incidence from thermal
discharge (zero), the relative emphasis being given to the thermal pollution abate-
ment seems disproportional.
Risk Comparisons
As a starting point in deciding on the acceptability of energy technologies,
one may simply compare the health risk of the alternatives, since in this case,
the benefits (a given amount of energy) are identical. Clearly, the alternative
with the lowest health cost should seem the most acceptable (unless there are some
other overriding factors). For example, a summary of the enhanced risk of death
per year because of alternative modes of electrical production is shown in Table 1
(from reference 5). Such comparisons offer only a relative basis for choice and
are not instructive as to what minimum level of health risk, if any, seems accept-
able, nor do they offer an objective basis for the amelioration of current or
prospective energy-related health risks.
But this approach has a number of additional shortcomings. It is misleading
insofar as it assumes an equivalence of health effects. For example, ionizing
radiation can produce genetic damage that would affect generations, roof falls in
coal mines can mean instant death, and air pollution from fossil fuel consumption
can produce disabling lung diseases, all widely different health effects. Equiva-
lence of fuels is not necessarily warranted. Nuclear energy is useful for generating
electricity, as is coal. Neither is suitable for directly powering automobiles.
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This article can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Article.
Hull, A.P. Evaluation of energy related risk acceptance (APHA energy task force), article, January 1, 1977; Upton, New York. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1066667/m1/8/: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.